Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Army Medical Corps

Mr. Nick Hawkins: What plans he has for the Royal Army Medical Corps to occupy the buildings of Staff College, Camberley; and if he will make a statement. [109394]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We are examining a number of options for the future location of headquarters elements of the Army medical services, including the possible use of the Staff College building in Camberley. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for that confirmation. The Under-Secretary's officials may have briefed him that the local press in my constituency has announced the decision as if it had been made. I hope that he will ensure that when his officials talk to officers, elected councillors and the press in my constituency, they provide accurate information at every stage.
The Under-Secretary knows that I asked his predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), almost the last question of the last Defence Question Time. I do not know whether that question was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to his resignation in a blaze of publicity over the vacuum at the heart of Labour's policies. Perhaps the previous Under-Secretary felt some embarrassment about his officials' actions over the matter that we are considering.

Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his questions, which are always polite and well phrased, if over long, would have had no influence on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
I have seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It did not emanate from the Department. No decision has yet been made; the hon. Gentleman will be informed when that happens.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Barry Jones: What progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [109395]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Competitive contracts, each worth about £30 million, for the future aircraft carrier assessment phase were awarded on 23 November to BAe Land and Sea Systems, now BAe Systems, and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The assessment phase will investigate options for carrier design and, by 2003, will deliver proposals for the demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at a likely cost of £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain the strategic thinking behind the decision to build 40,000 and 50,000-tonners, and set out the consequences for naval planning? What are the employment and industrial consequences for our regional shipyards? Will my right hon. Friend explain the timing and say when the decision will be implemented? On a less serious note, will one of those great aircraft carriers take the A400M? We do not want the C-17; we want the A400M heavy lifter.

Mr. Hoon: I recall congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity on the last occasion we met for Defence questions. He managed then to introduce a relevant constituency element into his question and he has done so again. I am not likely to delay the specification of any aircraft carrier to take the A400M. My right hon. Friend will probably understand that.
Aircraft carriers will be a key component of a future United Kingdom force structure. It was concluded in the strategic defence review that aircraft carriers could contribute greatly to our commitment to creating modern, highly capable joint forces that are able to fulfil our current commitment and adapt to the evolving requirements of the strategic environment. Carriers have a key role in force projection; they contribute to peace support and, when necessary, to military action.
On employment implications, the construction and fitting out of the carriers will offer good opportunities for United Kingdom shipyards. The identification of build yards will form part of industry's bids for the demonstration and manufacture phase. It is clearly too early to speculate about the exact number of jobs that might be created or sustained.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I, too, should like to know what sort of aircraft will be flown from the carriers. If they are to succeed the successful Harrier, with vertical or short take-off and landing—VSTOL—or short take-off and vertical landing—STOVL—capabilities, and perhaps be a variation on the joint strike fighter, surely a long vessel is not required. It might be more economic to refit our existing three aircraft carriers than to build two Goliaths.

Mr. Hoon: I was following the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution until he made his last observation. We have committed ourselves to two new carriers,


which will have more capability than the existing vessels. It would be unfortunate if any Government went back on such an undertaking.
On the nature of the aircraft, some matters have to be carefully investigated when selecting the type of aircraft to fly from such vessels. They have implications for the size and specification of the carriers. Those matters remain under active consideration. No decision has yet been made on those precise matters.

Mr. Syd Rapson: As you and I know, Madam Speaker, the people of Portsmouth are interested in the berthing of those two magnificent ships and their future victualling. They must be prepared for in advance and a lot of studies on quays and support facilities are usually carried out. As no research at all has been done in Portsmouth, may I take it that it has been written off as a home port for the two ships?

Mr. Hoon: Absolutely not. Portsmouth is a vital port for the Royal Navy and will continue to be so, but as my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the substantive question, those vessels do not come into service until 2012 and 2015. I assure him and the House that the investigation of berthing facilities at Portsmouth will continue as a matter of urgency in order to meet those two dates.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny clearly and unambiguously the serious report in Warship World—which he knows is generally a well-informed magazine—to the effect that the Government are considering withdrawing HMS Invincible from service rather than giving it the refit that it will need? Contrary to all their public assurances, they have a covert plan to reduce our carrier fleet to two—long before the new large carriers are even contracted for. I shall give him a copy of the report, and hope that today the House can be told authoritatively exactly what the Government's plans are.

Mr. Hoon: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring to the defence team a welcome enthusiasm for European matters. I only wish that it were possible to participate in the team meetings when he and his colleagues discuss them.
On the substantive matter, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House will be the first to hear about any change in the Government's plans and, as no decision has been taken along the lines of the speculation that he described, he probably ought to remain cool, calm and collected, as he usually does.

British Forces Post Office, Mill Hill

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the future of British Forces Post Office at Mill Hill. [109396].

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The future structure and location of the British Forces Post Office United Kingdom base is under review as part of my Department's strategic development plan for Greater London.

Mr. Dismore: The review has been under way for a considerable time and is causing uncertainty and disquiet among the staff—both civilian and uniformed personnel—at Mill Hill. When is it likely to be completed, and can my hon. Friend give me the assurance that it will take into account the excellent work done by BFPO at Mill Hill? It delivered millions of letters and parcels over Christmas well within the performance criteria and makes a major contribution to the morale of our service personnel overseas.

Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the loyalty and dedication of the military and civilian staff at BFPO—they are vital to the agency's success—and he and I went to see it for ourselves. Following the study, we hope to be able to make a decision about BFPO's future in late summer.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister accept from me that support for the safe and secure service provided by BFPO is widespread on both sides of the House? Is he aware in particular that it is a matter of the utmost importance to me for the simple reason that my mother lives in the Mill Hill area? Will he also accept from me that tolerating representation by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is sufficient burden for her to bear—she does so with dignity and stoicism? Does the Minister agree that it would be monstrous to deprive her of that admirable facility, of which she is a longstanding supporter?

Mr. Spellar: I see that Conservative Members are very sensitive in declaring interests these days. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the excellent service and the staff at Mill Hill. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), they are critical to the success of a much-appreciated agency. As part of the restructuring of our service estate in the London area, we are considering how best to provide that service. Key considerations in making that decision will be the maintenance of continuity of service and the enormous loyalty and dedication shown by those staff.

Nuclear Deterrent

Dr. Julian Lewis: If it is the Government's policy that Britain should continue to possess a nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons. [109397]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Britain's minimum nuclear deterrent is a necessary element of the security of this country, particularly while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain. That was a key conclusion of the Government's strategic defence review. When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to allow us to include British nuclear weapons in negotiations without endangering our security interests, we shall do so.

Dr. Lewis: That goes three quarters of the way towards answering the question, but not the whole way.
Does the Secretary of State not recall that, in July 1991, after two years of intense Conservative pressure, his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) committed his party to keeping some


nuclear weapons, as long as other countries had them? Will he now reaffirm that commitment, and confirm that, no matter what sort of multilateral negotiations take place in the future, he will never agree to arrangements whereby we would get rid of all our nuclear weapons while other countries still possessed some with which we could be threatened?

Mr. Hoon: I have set out the Government's position. It is the position on which Labour Members were elected at the last general election, and it remains the position that the Government will adopt.
In his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman overlooked the purpose of deterrence. The purpose of deterrence is to deter those who might be tempted to attack this country's security interests, and the retention of nuclear weapons is designed to deter any such aggression. That is the purpose of deterrence; that is why the United Kingdom has an independent nuclear deterrent; and that is why the Government, subject to what I set out earlier, will retain that deterrent.

Mr. Martin Salter: Speaking of this country's nuclear deterrent capability, my right hon. Friend will know of the letter sent by his colleague Baroness Symons to those of us who represent constituencies surrounding the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston. In the light of the decision to award a future 10-year management contract at AWE Aldermaston to a consortium including British Nuclear Fuels plc, and following revelations of the deliberate falsification of nuclear data, does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to award the contract to that consortium is in urgent need of review? Many of my constituents would prefer Homer Simpson to run AWE Aldermaston rather than have BNFL.

Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the letter. As my hon. Friend will know, we have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement to examine the terms and conditions of the contract to ensure the pre-eminence of public health and environmental safety as they affect the workers at the facility, and also the general public. We have also insisted that BNFL nominations to the new AWE top management team are free of any connection with the incidents noted in the report by the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Ministry of Defence is confident that the nuclear installations inspectorate is in a position to impose the highest possible safety standards before it will be prepared to grant the licence, which is a precondition of the new contract's taking effect. The reports on BNFL demonstrate the NII's independence and integrity.

Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State realise that serious queries are arising about the safety consciousness of two of the three firms that make up the consortium to which he has just granted the new contract to run Aldermaston: Lockheed Martin and BNFL? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents and those living close to the site will be appalled by the thought that, in future, their safety could be in the hands of those two companies?

Mr. Hoon: I have described the steps that we have taken, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be satisfied with the concern that has already been expressed.
The NII has approved the draft management prospectus, but before it can grant a new nuclear licence to enable AWE sites to operate from 1 April, it must be satisfied that all parts of the approved safety regime are underwritten by the directors appointed to run them. It will be able to examine carefully the antecedents and, as I said earlier, any possible connections with the incidents that have caused so much concern. All the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered, and I hope he will be able to reassure his constituents that every step will be taken to investigate the antecedents of those who might be involved in running the AWE.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Surely the sophistical arguments of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about our possible ultimate negotiating stance in putative negotiations that have not even reached the planning stage yet are about as relevant as debating angels dancing on pinheads. Would it not be better to concentrate on encouraging the ratification of the START 2 treaty and to begin meaningful multilateral negotiations, lest we end up joining the angels?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend raises the alarming prospect of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) dancing on a pinhead. On his more serious point, he is right. What is important is that we encourage, disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, where we can. The Government are committed to that and will use their influence in the world to achieve it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In considering the future of nuclear deterrence, is it not right to give some regard to the proposal from the United States that it should deploy some form of national missile defence? Is it not clear that the United States intends to deploy some form of national missile defence, even against the reservations of its European allies and even if it means breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972?
What undertakings, if any, has the Secretary of State given on the possible use of such a system at Filingdales? What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent if an NMD were to come about in the United States and were the subject of a response—an increase in ballistic missiles by other countries?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that there is no specific proposal as yet from the United States. The Government have been in close touch with the United States Administration on the question. President Clinton will not decide on deployment before next summer.
As for the reservations—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman alleges—of the allies, the United States Administration have made it clear that one of the specific considerations that they will take into account is the reaction and attitude of the allies, as well as other international security considerations, so the matters that he raises have been fully taken into account.
Certainly, the matter will have to be looked at in the event of any specific request from the United States, although no specific request has been made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is a long history of close co-operation between the UK and the United States in relation to United States basing. I anticipate that that co-operation will continue.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If we are to continue with possession of the nuclear deterrent, it will be right and proper that the House ensures that the highest safety standards are followed on the maintenance and transportation of such weaponry, especially where submarines that carry nuclear weapons travel through traditional fishing grounds. Will my right hon. Friend confirm here and now that there was no nuclear submarine in the vicinity of the sinking of the Kirkcudbright scallop dredger, the Solway Harvester, because many people in Scotland believe that the vessel went down with the loss of its seven-man crew because it was in collision with another vessel, perhaps a nuclear submarine?

Mr. Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend that no nuclear vessel was in the vicinity at the relevant time.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), are not the Government in a wobble over the whole position on ballistic missile defence? The Secretary of State's predecessor, Lord Robertson, said:
We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems"—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 10.],
yet we find that the Government have already reached agreement with the United States through their receipt of information and the upgrade of Menwith Hill. We also know that the Secretary of State has had serious discussions with his counterparts in the United States on the upgrade of Filingdales. Is not the reality that they dare not say what their intention is because of their fear of their own Back Benchers, who do not like it?

Mr. Hoon: The specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is no. Let me repeat what I have already told the House: as yet, we have had no specific request from the United States Government and they have not yet decided whether to go ahead with national missile defence. Our position is clear.

Mr. Duncan Smith: What about Menwith Hill?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman investigated the role and responsibilities of that establishment a little more closely, he would discover that it would go ahead regardless of whether national missile defence goes ahead. Menwith Hill will play an important role in detecting the launch of ballistic missiles anywhere in the world. It is an entirely sensible step in its own right.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is all over the place on the issue. His predecessor, Lord Robertson,

said that the ABM treaty was one of the pioneering forerunners of arms control legislation, yet as recently as the end of last year, Baroness Symons said:
Interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a matter for the parties to that treaty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 1999; Vol. 606, c. WA6.]
She and the Secretary of State know that the US and the old Soviet Union are signatories. The Government are sliding on the issue. Previously, they said that they were utterly opposed, but now they are not quite as opposed as they were.

Mr. Hoon: The Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, are signatories to the ABM treaty. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that there have been two significant amendments to the treaty, one of which was made in 1997, long after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fact that the parties to the treaty might wish to enter into negotiations with a view to a further amendment can hardly be a surprise to him or to anyone else.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is clear that the Government are scared not only of their Back Benchers but of their new co-habitees in the European security and defence identity, the French Government. President Chirac has said:
We must avoid any questioning of the ABM Treaty that could lead to a disruption of the strategic equilibrium and a new nuclear arms race.
The Secretary of State has been to the United States and had a series of discussions on the issue. He has agreed to the use of information, not only from Menwith Hill, for that defence programme, and has undertaken the same for Filingdales. Is not the reality that, as on so many other issues, the Government are behaving ever more like a double agent, telling one thing to one group and another to another?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is getting ever more desperate as he tries to find some substance for his questions. Let us deal with Menwith Hill. It is the European relay ground system of the United States space-based infra-red system, designed to detect the launch of ballistic missiles. It is regarded by the United States as necessary, irrespective of any decision on a national missile defence programme. The hon. Gentleman would do well not to keep referring to Menwith Hill, because it does not make his case, whatever it is—although the more I listen to him, the harder it is to detect what his argument is about.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Eric Forth for question No. 5. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] In that case I call Mr. Tam Dalyell.

Depleted Uranium Munitions (Friendly Fire)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What scientific evaluation was made (a) in 1991 and (b) subsequently of the effects on UK troops of friendly fire involving depleted uranium munitions; and if he will make a statement. [109400]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Obviously, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is keener to turn up late at night to talk about irrelevancies than to come and deal with the real business of the House.
The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any friendly fire incidents during which British troops were injured or killed by depleted uranium-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict. The historical and technical evaluation of the records from the friendly fire incidents that occurred during the Gulf conflict has concluded that there is no evidence to show that DU munitions were involved. Therefore, there has been no scientific evaluation of the effects of exposure to depleted uranium on British troops involved in friendly fire incidents.

Mr. Dalyell: As a member of an incoming Administration, is my hon. Friend entitled to know all the facts of what was, or was not, asked on depleted uranium in 1991?

Mr. Spellar: I am not entirely sure of the context in which my hon. Friend asks that question. In answer to a previous question that he posed in this regard, I said:
The US Department of Defense informs us that there is no 'US Army Depleted Uranium Assessment Unit'. The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any 'friendly fire' incidents during which British troops were injured or killed by depleted uranium-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 90W.]
It is of course open to an incoming Administration to be advised of information that would be pertinent to such a question. We have answered the question, and I am not exactly sure what my hon. Friend's difficulty is. If he cares to write to me pointing out further information that he thinks will be required and the basis on which he thinks it will, we will obviously be prepared to investigate further.

Armed Services (Family Friendly Working Practices)

Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on the development of family-friendly working practices within the armed services. [109402]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The key family-friendly policies for the services are to provide adequate time for family life and, during deployment, the ability for family members to communicate with each other. We have reduced the number deployed on operations, introduced post-operational tour leave and a bonus payment for those experiencing the greatest separation, and increased the welfare telephone allowance from three to 20 minutes per week. That is an impressive record of achievement.

Mr. Goggins: I want to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices that our armed services staff and their families make on our behalf. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to encourage staff to take up their new entitlements to parental leave and to time off in family emergencies, both of which were recently introduced by the Government?

Mr. Spellar: Armed forces personnel are entitled to parental leave, as allowed for in the parental leave

directive. It is service practice, operations permitting, to allow personnel to take paid annual leave to attend childbirth. On family emergencies, the armed forces have an excellent compassionate system in place that is specifically designed to deal with serious family emergencies; it can include both paid leave and free travel back home.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In that seemingly impressive list of measures to help families, where would the Minister put the £11 million cut in the budget for repairing married quarters, coming as it did just after a study had shown that the backlog of repairs is much worse than was previously thought?

Mr. Spellar: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the backlog of repairs, which was overlooked by the Conservative Government, who, in the rushed sale of property to Annington Homes, underestimated the amount required to bring the properties up to category 1 by £112 million. That has led to the stretching of the programme to 2005. We have been able to put some additional money back into the programme in the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman should really look to the people who previously occupied the Government Benches. I regret to say that he backed out on that argument in the end.

Armed Services (Recruitment)

Mr. Hilary Benn: What account is taken of the previous convictions of applicants to the armed services in deciding whether to recruit them. [109403]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Each service has slightly different regulations concerning such applicants. In general, the armed forces accept inquiries from young minor offenders who have completed the rehabilitation period in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 after they have served their sentence. Each case is considered on its merits.

Mr. Benn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the armed services have a role to play in giving ex-offenders who want to go straight the opportunity of proving that they are capable of doing so?

Mr. Spellar: Yes, subject to the qualification that they have to be acceptable to the armed forces and that there must be evidence that they have genuinely changed their ways and will not be a bad influence. As I have said previously from the Dispatch Box, we believe that people have a right to repair the mistakes that they have made, subject to that being consistent with the interests of the armed forces. We believe that many such youngsters will make good soldiers, sailors and airmen, which will be good for the country and very good for them and their families.

Cadet Services

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will provide extra funding for Army, Air and Sea Cadets and bring forward proposals to increase recruitment to the cadet services. [109404]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): My Department has provided more than £58 million in funding for the Army, Air and Sea Cadets in the current financial year, as well as over £6 million for the Combined Cadet Force. In 1998, we made an extra £3 million available over four years to pay for enhancements to training, equipment and infrastructure following the strategic defence review. The cadet forces undertake their own recruitment, with practical support from the services wherever possible. The total number of cadets has increased steadily each year, and we expect to see a continuation of that trend.

Mr. Russell: Will the Minister confirm that the numbers of service men and women are still under strength across all the armed forces? Bearing in mind the fact that the cadet movement is a good recruiting ground, does he not agree that it would be good sense and good value for money to invest more in our cadets for recruitment purposes, and—in the spirit of joined-up government—for purposes of social inclusion, dealing with the causes of crime and giving our young people things to do other than be in the classroom the whole time?

Dr. Moonie: I am tempted just to answer yes, Madam Speaker, because I know that you favour short questions and answers. Alas, I am sorry to disappoint you, although my answer will be short. Between March and September 1999, the number of Army Cadets rose to 42,114, the highest for 10 years, in the wake of the "Attitude" campaign. Numbers in other cadet forces are also at satisfactory levels and, generally speaking, the extra money that we have put in is bearing fruit.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend may not have been in his post long enough to understand what a superb job the Navy cadets do in my constituency with Training Ship Forward. They contribute tremendously to the development of the service ethic among young people, as well as contributing to every civic occasion in the town. My hon. Friend will be aware that the funding arrangements for the Sea Cadets are not the same as for the other services, and that is presenting us with problems in finding a long-term base for them. Will he have discussions with his colleagues in other Departments to see if improvements can be made in the funding regime?

Dr. Moonie: We would be prepared to look at that. It has not been our practice in the past to provide direct support, for example, for accommodation. However, we give the Sea Cadets much non-cash support, for example through the loan of sailing craft and small powered craft.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I wonder whether the Minister can tell me—or perhaps he could write to me—about the rehousing of the Army, Air and Sea Cadets in Shirley in my constituency, who have traditionally paraded at the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve centre that his Department is closing.

Dr. Moonie: I will clearly have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of the question, although I can

say that when closures occur, we do our best to re-accommodate the cadet forces involved, as should be the case in Shirley.

Married Quarters

Mr. Edward Leigh: When he last met the Army Families Federation to discuss married quarters. [109406]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I last met the Army Families Federation on 16 November 1999 when I chaired the second families forum of the service families task force.

Mr. Leigh: I wish to ask the Minister about married quarters and I hope that he will not give the sort of party political reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), because there is much concern about the subject. Has the Minister read the Defence Committee's report on married quarters? Has he noticed that the last thing that service men want when they go abroad is to return to dilapidated married quarters? Has he noted the conclusions of the Committee's report—remembering that his party has a majority on the Committee—that
We have been provided with insufficient evidence for us to be sure that this area is not subject to budgetary squeeze simply because it is an easy target.
Is it an easy target, or is he going to do something for service men and women and ensure that their homes are brought up to standard?

Mr. Spellar: As I said to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), we will spend some £112 million more than was budgeted for by the previous Government after their rapid sale to Annington in an attempt to balance the budget for the pre-election exercise. We are aware of the needs of married quarters and of single living accommodation, which is another area of considerable neglect that we inherited.

Mr. Robert Key: May I invite the Minister to stop blustering about what happened five years ago and get on with finding proper housing for our service men and women and their families? Regardless of the reasons for the slippage that has occurred, it is unacceptable to try to save £2 million a year by cutting back on new carpets and curtains. The lack of appropriate quarters is a major factor in our inability to retain armed forces personnel. I accept that recruitment is not doing badly, but if he continues with the present policy, the Minister will do nothing but harm in the matter of retaining personnel in our armed forces.

Mr. Spellar: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention once again to the considerable shortfall that we inherited. In addition to refurbishing existing property, we are letting a number of private finance initiative contracts to build new housing. Those initiatives involve building 279 properties at Lossiemouth, 88 at Yeovilton, 145 at Cosford and Shawbury, and 164 in central Scotland. That high-quality housing is highly appreciated, and considerable work is also being done in other areas. I fully agree that some properties are unacceptable as married quarters for our service families. However, much of the


available housing is good, and the improvements that have been made are greatly appreciated. Considerable sums of money are being devoted to the problem—some £112 more than had been budgeted for after the previous Administration's fire sale to Annington Homes.

Ammunition Expenditure

Mr. Graham Brady: How much his Department spent in each of the last three years on ammunition for each of the armed services. [109407]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): In financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, we spent some £173 million, £168 million and £152 million respectively procuring ammunition for the Army. Equivalent figures for the Royal Navy were £122 million, £115 million and £148 million, and for the Royal Air Force, £96 million, £157 million and £241 million. These figures cover the costs, at historic prices, associated with the procurement of lethal munitions, including small, medium, and large-calibre gun ammunition, grenades, mortar bombs, rockets, guided missiles, and torpedoes.

Mr. Brady: Is the amount of ammunition provided for training purposes larger or smaller than it was three years ago?

Dr. Moonie: As far as I know, the amount has remained roughly constant, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Given the amount of money involved, will the Minister ensure that the Government continue to meet procurement needs in the UK, and that Britain does not become reliant on other countries in that regard?

Dr. Moonie: Clearly, I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees on that. Each case will be considered on its merits. Our main emphasis is on securing value for money and high quality. Within those constraints, we shall certainly endeavour, wherever possible, to source materials in this country.

Defence Attachés

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What plans his Department has to improve its network of defence attachés. [109410]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As part of the work following on from the strategic defence review, a comprehensive review of the distribution of defence attachés has been carried out. The outcome was agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the end of last year, and the resultant new distribution of attachés is being implemented from 1 April 2000 over a two-year period.
I am pleased to inform the House that the number of countries with permanent British attachés in post will increase from 75 to 80. That is consistent with the

strategic defence review, which gave a general assessment that increased priority should be given to support for defence diplomacy in central and eastern Europe and to the provision for operational military advice and assistance in sub-Saharan Africa. The increase in our attaché presence in central and eastern Europe will enhance the provision of support to the outreach programme in particular.

Mr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that defence diplomacy, especially with the aim of conflict prevention in central Europe and in Africa, is among the strategic defence review's crucial priorities, and that it has need of further attention? Does he share my view that greater civilian and democratic control of the armed forces in those countries should be a priority for the Department? Will he assure me that, unlike the Conservative Government, this Government will fund such work properly?

Dr. Moonie: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I confirm that extra funding to the tune of £2.5 million a year has been made available for that initiative.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: But where are the defence attachés going to live? There are still many parts of the world—especially in the former Soviet Union—where our representatives operate out of other embassies. Were it not for the help offered by the Germans and the Scandinavians, we would not have representatives in the former Soviet Union. Has the Minister spoken to the Foreign Secretary, who has announced that he is to reduce British representation overseas?

Dr. Moonie: That seems a cost-effective way of providing accommodation! Seriously, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the greatest care in ensuring that our employees are properly looked after when they are abroad.

Roll On/Roll Off Container Ships

Mr. Desmond Browne: If he will make a statement about his Department's plans to procure four roll on/roll off container ships. [109412]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The strategic defence review confirmed the requirement for an expanded sealift capability of six roll on/roll off ships—four in addition to the two currently on charter—to transport equipment for our joint rapid reaction forces. We are seeking to provide the capability under private finance initiative arrangements, and intend to announce a single preferred bidder later this year.

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend confirmed that the building of the roll on/roll off ships is an essential part of the full implementation of the strategic defence review. He will be aware that the River Clyde has a great history of shipbuilding, but that recently, shipbuilding on the Clyde has become vulnerable to uncompetitive pricing practices, particularly from elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the selection of a


preferred bidder for the ships, a full and open competition will take place, and that full account will be taken of the bid by the Sealion consortium, led by the Govan yard?

Mr. Hoon: I can confirm the requirement for roll on/roll off ferries. As far as the Clyde is concerned, the Government are very pleased that the ownership of the Govan shipyard has been settled. Scottish shipyards such as Govan have historically made a vital contribution to shipbuilding in this country, and I hope that they will continue to play an important role. Certainly, there will be a full and open competition. Obviously, it is vital to the interests of the British taxpayer that we secure the best value-for-money order available.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I welcome the commitment that six roll on/roll off ferries will be available as part of our strategic lift capability. However, it would be rather odd if such measures were set alongside measures to reduce Fearless to the reserve; to place a further three frigates and destroyers into the reserve; to put four Hunt class MCMVs to reserve; to put three Sandown class MCMVs to reserve; to lay up three further Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; and to bring home Dumbarton Castle from the Falkland islands. I understand, on authoritative briefing from within the Ministry of Defence, that all those measures are being considered to deal with a bloodstained long-term costings process as a result of the fact that the Ministry does not have enough money to support the defence budget in a sensible fashion.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable knowledge of the way in which the Ministry of Defence operates, should choose to highlight the most speculative source of information with which I have so far had to deal. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: he knows that, necessarily, a whole series of options is canvassed and that against those options, real decisions are taken. I assure him that no real decision along the lines of his speculation has been taken. I also assure him, as I assure other hon. Members, that when decisions are taken the House will be the first to hear—and rather before spurious pieces are published in whatever publication.

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Minister of State, Scotland Office replied to me in a recent Adjournment debate, he reaffirmed that Scotland offers support for Govan's Sealion bid? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Govan shipyard is ready to work immediately on this order?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that personal commitment. I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) will be down there in the event of the contract being awarded to that particular shipyard. However, it is a competitive process, and it is necessary for the Government, in the interests of the taxpayers, to choose the best value-for-money offer.

Young Service People

Fiona Mactaggart: How many serving members of the armed forces are aged under 18 years; and if he will make a statement on their deployment. [109413]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As at January 2000, 6,238 personnel under 18 were serving in the armed forces. The vast majority of personnel under 18 are situated in the UK. Of those overseas, there are 114 in Germany; 23 in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia; 15 in Cyprus; 12 in the Falkland islands; and seven on ships in the Gulf. I stress that they are all volunteers and have parental consent to join the armed forces.

Fiona Mactaggart: Have any of the 17-year-olds who are allowed to be deployed on active service in the armed forces in Britain been victims in armed conflict? Have any of them been killed or injured in conflict during the past 20 years?

Mr. Spellar: I fear that I should have required notice of my hon. Friend's question to reply to it today. I shall write to her.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister confirm that many of those recruited at 16 are among the Army's most successful recruits? What discussions has he held with the German Foreign Minister on the matter?

Mr. Spellar: I must confess that I have had no discussions with the German Foreign Minister on that matter or any other—and who is he at the moment? [Interruption.] I know.
More to the point, the hon. Gentleman's question was relevant. Many of those recruited at 16 go on to have successful careers in the armed forces. We continue to recruit at 16 because we want to recruit among the best of our young people so that we can sustain our justified reputation for having the best armed forces in the world.

Manpower Requirements

Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans he has to update the strategic defence review with regard to numbers of personnel [109414]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There are no plans to change the manpower requirements for each of the three services identified during the strategic defence review.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Following the Ministry's recent recruiting initiatives, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that retention remains an increasingly serious problem? Will he confirm that a net figure of about 100 people a month leave the Army? How can he say that the Government are addressing and eliminating overstretch? Even at this late stage, will he not review the decision to cut the Territorial Army by 18,000, the reversal of which would be one of the most cost-effective measures he could take?

Mr. Hoon: It is no longer true that there is a net outflow from the Army. It was the case, but the situation


has been turned around, and there is now a net inflow of about 30 people a month. The Government's policy has been successful. Recruiting has reached record levels lately. For example, Royal Marines officer posts are over-subscribed and we cannot satisfy all those who wish to join. In addition, the general services in the Royal Marines are expected to meet their target for the first time since 1994. We are doing well on recruitment.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that retention remains of concern. It is important that people should remain in the armed forces for as long as they had planned to when they joined, but the problem is being addressed, both in terms of significant changes in our commitments, which were leading to overstretch towards the end of last year, and in terms of enhanced allowances and improved pay, which are now available. The hon. Gentleman would, I think, be satisfied by the considerable turn-around in recent months.

Learning Forces Initiative

Mr. Jeff Ennis: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's learning forces initiative. [109415]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We are making good progress with our learning forces initiative. It will encourage people to join the services, develop them once they have joined and equip them for the civilian employment market when they leave.

Mr. Ennis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme should be properly funded so that it may help service men make a more successful transition to civilian life? As more than £1 billion a year is spent by the armed forces on education and training, does my right hon. Friend agree that more of that pot of money should be allocated to enhancing the scheme?

Mr. Hoon: I am confident that appropriate sums are made available to the scheme, which is not just about assisting people to make the transfer to civilian life, but about improving basic key skills for the least able recruits, offering all personnel the opportunity to gain level 2 national vocational qualifications within three years of joining the services and introducing standard learning credits with awards of up to £175 a year to members of the armed forces to help them to advance personal development through academic or practical study. The initiative is not just about the transition to civilian life, although that is important. It seeks to improve the ability and qualifications of members of our armed services while they are in the services.

Shoeburyness

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a further statement on the future of the old and new ranges at Shoeburyness. [109416]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As my predecessor informed the House on 28 January, the whole of the old ranges and Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness, were sold, subject to contract, on 20 January 2000. As for the new ranges, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is

now working with SERCO Ltd. to rationalise the estate and to introduce new business to co-exist with the continuing range activities, which may require the release of a small amount of land. DERA plans to brief the local community on that subject in early March and then jointly to agree a way forward.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that members of the local community in Shoeburyness are a little disturbed because, although the site of the old ranges was sold in January, they have still not been told who bought it? Although we were given the strongest assurances from both DERA and SERCO that they would keep the local community advised about the new ranges, there have been no meetings so far. Will the hon. Gentleman take a personal interest in the issue; will he try to ensure that the local community is told what is happening; and, if need be, will he speak at a public meeting in Shoeburyness to tell the local community exactly what is happening with two delightful and very valuable sites?

Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we cannot make an announcement until the contracts are signed and everything is properly closed. I have the greatest sympathy for his constituents in the present situation. I shall do everything in my power to expedite the appropriate development of the site.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend tell me how many contracts SERCO has in the Ministry of Defence?

Dr. Moonie: A very large, positive integer.

Food Purchasing

Mr. Nigel Evans: How much of the food purchased for the armed forces is sourced from abroad. [109418]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The supply of food for our armed forces was contracted out by the previous Administration. The agreement does not specify the source from which our contractors should obtain products, but expects them to seek the best market price, consistent with meeting our quality standard, while giving full consideration to British products. Our main food supply contract is with 3663: it is sourcing a range of more than 1,300 different products for the armed forces, including fresh, chilled and frozen commodities. The company advises that about 26 per cent. of those are currently imported. Included in that figure are products which are not made or grown in this country.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister explain why so much of our food is sourced from abroad? I accept that, in certain cases when the armed forces are abroad for a period, it is more appropriate to source the food locally. However, we have moved on: the Minister's party is in government.


Will he explain why, when the French will not eat our beef, we are forcing our armed forces to take £1 million-worth of French chickens? Does he agree that, when the French will not eat our beef, it is hard for us to swallow the fact that we are forcing our armed forces to eat their chickens?

Dr. Moonie: As the hon. Gentleman can tell from looking at me, it is plain that I have little difficulty in swallowing anything.
As for French chickens, I regret to say that, thanks to the provisions of the contract—which I am sure the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically supported when he was in government—we have no choice but to accept supply from the cheapest source. However, I can offer him one ray of light: on the matter of lamb, I have today agreed to meet Welsh hill farmers to discuss whether there is any possibility that they can satisfy some of our requirements for that product.

Training and Education

Mr. David Kidney: What plans he has for increasing work-based training and education for young people in the armed forces. [109422]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): All three services are actively involved in a range of projects designed to improve access to training and education at the workplace, as follow-on work to our learning forces initiative. That involves considerable and widespread investment in interactive learning facilities and in computers with internet access. However, those measures are not targeted specifically at young people; they are aimed at all members of the armed forces.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he held any discussions with his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about the proposed new connection service? Will he ensure that the education and training benefits of a career in the armed forces will be fairly presented to those young people who avail themselves of that service?

Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to say that we are co-operating very well with the Department for Education and Employment, not only in this area but also very much in the area of craft apprenticeships within our establishment. We certainly believe that, as a result of this and other initiatives, the armed forces provide an excellent career for young people, and we hope that the Department for Education and Employment and education authorities throughout the country will help to get that message across.

BBC (Funding Review)

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement setting out the Government's decisions on the future funding of the BBC.
I should say at the outset that, together with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I gave the most careful consideration to the Opposition's formal request for a delay in the making of this statement until tomorrow. However, because of the intense speculation that there has been over the past few days and because of the commercially sensitive nature of some of the information that I have to give, I thought that it was important to come to the House at the very earliest opportunity.
The future funding of the BBC is a matter that has generated considerable interest, because the BBC is an institution which is central to the United Kingdom's view of itself and of the world.
I want to leave the House in no doubt about the Government's commitment to public service broadcasting and to retaining the BBC at its heart. The BBC is the UK's most important cultural institution, and we have a duty to ensure that it can continue to play a central role in the nation's life. Specifically, the BBC should provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services and should drive the take-up of new digital and online services. A strong BBC is crucial in ensuring that everyone can have access to information, news, education and current affairs, using efficient modern methods, so that we can build a society for the 21st century on the solid foundations set down for us in the 20th.
We welcome the fact that the BBC's main priorities for the next seven years are: improving established services; expanding education work; developing interactive services; and devolution in national and regional broadcasting. We particularly welcome the BBC's intention to re-establish BBC 1 as the corporation's flagship, its commitment to education—in particular learning support for schools and for lifelong learning—and the exploitation of new learning possibilities opened up by interactivity. We also welcome the BBC's plans for enhancing services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with a greater regional emphasis within England.
It is to enable the BBC to deliver these priorities that I am prepared to offer it more support. We shall be keeping the BBC's implementation of these plans closely under review, and ensuring that it meets the commitments that it makes in return for that additional support. The BBC must understand the basis of our decision and continue to satisfy Parliament that it can and will deliver.
I want to leave the House in no doubt that to achieve this vision and to improve its services, the BBC needs to raise its game; it must become even more cost-effective and quality-conscious. That is why we are not going to allow the BBC the massive injection of funds that it has sought from the licence fee—an increase reaching more than £700 million a year by 2006. We are setting it a number of challenges, in terms of sources of finance and in operations.
In our consideration of these issues, we have been enormously assisted by the work of the independent review panel into the future funding of the BBC chaired

by Gavyn Davies, which reported last summer. We asked the panel to examine options for providing the BBC with additional funding, assuming that the licence fee remains the principal source of revenue during the current charter period. The panel was also requested to consider the arrangements under which the BBC achieves a proper balance between its public and commercial services, and the concessionary scheme for pensioners. Broadly speaking, I am today accepting the panel's analysis although not, in every respect, the detailed solutions that it proposed.
The report was published in July 1999 for public consultation, and more than 2,000 responses were received. In reaching our decisions, we have taken account of them. I shall shortly place a summary of responses in the Library of the House, and—provided respondents have given permission—the representations by organisations will shortly be made available by my Department's information centre. I have also paid close attention to the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and, now that I have taken the decisions on the way forward, I will publish the Government's response to it as quickly as possible.
I should also mention that the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has apologised to me for the fact that a hospital appointment prevents him from being with us this afternoon.
Today, I am also placing in the Library of the House the report of the independent consultants, Pannell Kerr Forster, entitled "Review of the BBC's Financial Projections", which provided a key input into my decisions on finance, together with my Department's chief economist's analysis and a copy of my letter to the chairman of the BBC, which will set out the detail of this settlement.
I shall now deal with the Government's decisions under four headings—finance, programming, transparency and licence fee concessions. They provide a balanced package of measures, which I hope can be widely welcomed.
We accept the judgment of the Davies panel that our vision for the BBC cannot be realised within the existing funding framework. We agree with the panel that, without the BBC's provision of high-quality free-to-air digital services, the penetration of digital television could end up being capped at around 50 to 60 per cent. of the population. The first place to look for new funding should be self-help by the BBC; new licence fee funding should be secondary. We are therefore providing for an increase in licence fee funding that will raise on average around £200 million per year between now and 2006. In addition, however, we are challenging the BBC to help itself by increased efficiency savings, and raising more revenue from its subsidiaries, to the tune of £490 million by 2006–07, over and above the £600 million which it itself estimated.
That figure presents the BBC with a higher target than that envisaged by the Davies panel and is in line with the conclusions of the independent analysis of BBC finances that I commissioned. It means that we are demanding, over the period of this settlement, that the BBC generates more than £1 billion from self-help. As envisaged by the Davies panel, a proportion of the proceeds should be reinvested in commercial businesses.
We will leave it to the BBC how it meets the challenge, but we are leaving the BBC in no doubt that we expect it to achieve the figures set out here by efficiency savings, partnerships, joint ventures, reductions in bureaucracy and other means. We believe that the licence fee settlement, together with self-help, should yield enough to ensure that the BBC enhances established services and develops a significant foothold in the digital world.
There has been considerable debate on the method of raising additional funding for the BBC. The review panel put forward the alternatives of a digital licence fee set at £24, which would "fade away" as the normal licence fee rose to meet it, or an increase in the general licence fee payable by all. I have decided not to adopt the new mechanism of a digital supplement payable only by those households with digital television. Although I accept that there are good arguments for such a solution, on balance I believe that the benefits of the increased funding will be available to all through improvements in the BBC core services, and, in the case of educational programming, also through schools. Furthermore, it is my view that switch-over to digital will take place this decade, so the time has now come to recognise that digital television will soon be the norm.
Following my announcement in September, it is now clear that digital switch-over can happen sooner than was envisaged by the Davies panel. Against my belief that digital television brings benefits to all, it would be wrong to signal that it is something special and only for the few. I am therefore going for the general licence fee option, and an increase of 1.5 per cent. over the retail prices index in each year starting in April this year. That means an increase of 3p per week above inflation each year. On 1 April this year, the licence fee will therefore rise by £3. It also means that for each pound that the BBC receives from the licence fee, it is expected to generate almost the equivalent through self-help. I shall shortly be laying regulations before the House in relation to the licence fee from 1 April.
The Davies panel proposed a package of reforms in the areas of transparency, fair trading and accountability. We support the thrust of the panel's recommendations. In particular, we intend to open up the process by which I approve new BBC proposals, and we shall also make the BBC's commitment to fair trading more transparent.
We are making it clear that we do not expect the licence fee to fund strands of the market, such as dedicated film and sport channels, to which the distinctive role of public service broadcasting has little extra to offer. More generally, we shall institute new procedures for the introduction of new services. That will include an opportunity for public consultation before I reach decisions on proposed new services.
We also propose to carry out a programme of reviews of all the current BBC digital services—News 24, Choice, Knowledge and Parliament—to ensure that services are achieving what the BBC assured me they would achieve when I approved them. We propose that a priority for such scrutiny should be News 24.
We shall open the BBC to more external scrutiny. It has, hitherto, been too much the judge and jury in its own cause. I am requiring independent scrutinies of the BBC's fair trading policies and its financial reporting, and I shall

publish both scrutiny reports. In addition, I shall expect the BBC to have its regular fair trading and financial audits carried out by different auditors in future. The fair trading auditor's full report on compliance and risk will in future be published by the BBC.
I shall also appoint independent consultants to carry out periodic examinations of the systems and controls in place to ensure fair trading, and of the nature and extent of financial systems in place. Those reports will also be published. All those scrutiny and audit reports will, of course, be available for consideration and questioning by the Select Committee. Finally, we shall also be reviewing the public service role and governance of the BBC in the forthcoming broadcasting and communications White Paper.
That means in essence: a review of the governance of the BBC in the forthcoming White Paper; clear separation of BBC fair trading and financial audits; regular measurement of the BBC's performance against its promises on all new services; independent scrutiny of the BBC's financial and fair trading systems and controls; and regular reviews of progress in achieving efficiency savings and commercial targets.
On concessions, we have already gone beyond the Davies panel's recommendation on assistance for pensioners with the announcement of free licences for the over-75s. I can now announce that we expect the scheme to start on 1 November, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. From 1 April, those who will be over 75 on 1 November, or who will turn 75 after that date but before their licence would expire, will be able to buy a short-term licence, lasting till 1 November. From 1 November, refunds will be available in respect of licences already paid for. I have also asked that the BBC will take steps to ensure that all those reaching their 75th birthday know that they are entitled to a free licence, and how to apply.
We accept the Davies panel's other recommendations for achieving fairness, and we shall therefore ensure that there is a half-price television licence for blind people from April this year; that subtitling of programmes is further developed; and that the cash easy-entry easy-payment scheme is simplified and made more equitable.
There remains the issue of what to do about the accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme, which is the main focus of current concessions. Although the majority of the current beneficiaries are over 75 and will receive free licences, about 130,000 pensioners and mentally and physically disabled people will be left in the scheme. Notwithstanding the drop in the number of people benefiting from the scheme, we propose to keep the existing arrangements for concessionary licences. Therefore, on concessions, we are: introducing free television licences for the over-75s from 1 November; introducing half-price television licences for blind people from 1 April; setting new targets for subtitling for new BBC digital services; simplifying and making more equitable one of the key easy-payment schemes; and retaining the current accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme.
Our key aims throughout have been to ensure accountability, choice, quality, and value for money. I hope the House agrees that this package is one from which our constituents will benefit. In return for 3p a week extra on top of the RPI, they will be assured of good


programming and good value for money from a BBC that will be able to continue to deliver the quality we expect as the new digital world increasingly becomes a reality.
I believe that the settlement will help to ensure the BBC's position and its role as our primary public service broadcaster into the new century. If we are serious about valuing the BBC at its best, about wanting to keep it at its best and about ensuring that we all have programmes of real quality to watch in the future, we must give it the support it needs. This statement will, I hope, give it precisely that.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his lengthy statement, and for his courtesy in providing me with advance notice of its content. One thing is certain: whatever people think of the content, they will be delighted that, at last, the dithering is over. The Secretary of State established the Davies committee in November 1998, and it reported in August last year. It is astonishing, although sadly characteristic, that it has taken all this time for the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind.
The Opposition recognise the BBC's achievements and its important role in setting a benchmark of quality in national and international broadcasting. The BBC has made and, I hope, will continue to make a major contribution to the cultural life of the nation. However, the broadcasting world is changing rapidly: already, more than 3 million households have access to multi-channel digital television. That explosion of choice raises fundamental questions about the current and future role of the BBC. The Secretary of State's approach to the issue of BBC funding is flawed, because he has failed to define what the BBC exists to do in a multi-channel age. It is simply not good enough that he should oblige the licence fee payer to stump up more money for the BBC in the absence of a clear and modern definition of the BBC's role, and with only the vaguest wish list to define how the money is spent.
The House will be aware that the settlement announced today breaches the five-year settlement agreed in 1996 with the previous Government. That settlement was designed to fund the BBC's expansion into digital services and was hailed at the time by the BBC as "an historic breakthrough". In addition to real increases in the licence fee since 1996—it has already risen by £14.50—the BBC has benefited from a £244 million cash sum from the sale of its transmitters, which sum was earmarked expressly for preparing for the digital age; a 1 million increase in the number of licence fee payers; and welcome efficiency gains totalling £462 million. It is not obvious that the BBC is short of money.
The Secretary of State announced his commitment to the five-year settlement in December 1997 and did so again on setting up the panel—indeed, he expressly excluded discussions of the present settlement from the panel's considerations. Why has he changed his mind? Should not the BBC, like everyone else, cut its cloth to match its purse? What other public enterprise has reached agreement with the Government to break a formal funding formula in mid-term? What is special about the BBC? What guarantee can the Secretary of State offer that, if the BBC could not keep to a five-year funding agreement, it will adhere to a six to seven-year settlement?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the settlement that he announced will in no way prejudice the negotiations or outcome of the charter renewal process,

which is due to start in 2003? Is he aware that six years is a very long time indeed in broadcasting? What provision exists to revisit the funding question in the light of changing circumstances? What account has he taken of the impact of household growth on the BBC's fee income over the next six years?
What are the Treasury implications of today's statement, bearing in mind the fact that from September the taxpayer will be funding the licence fee for over-75-year-olds?
We welcome measures aimed at improving external scrutiny, but why has the Secretary of State chosen to ignore the recommendations of Davies on a role for the National Audit Office?
We also welcome the programme of reviews of the BBC's current digital services, and we hope particularly that the review process will examine channels such as News 24 to establish whether they meet their public service remit and represent value for money. Will the Secretary of State provide the House with more information on who will undertake the reviews? Will they be undertaken by departmental officials, or will the review groups include an element of independence?
As for tightening the approvals procedure for new services, will the Secretary of State make it clear that any new education services will require his explicit approval?
We warmly welcome the decision to introduce a half-price licence for registered blind people and to impose tougher requirements for improved subtitling, both of which we have been advocating. Does not the Secretary of State regret ducking the issue of reforming the existing concessionary arrangements, which will continue the inequities affecting people aged between 65 and 75?
While in welcoming mode, may I welcome the decision to do away with the digital licence tax—the tax on innovation—and congratulate the Secretary of State on finally burying that misconceived idea?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that under the Conservatives, the viewer would have paid less? His announcement today will mean that instead of looking forward to a reduction in the licence fee, as they would have done under our settlement, viewers can look forward only to paying more—on average, £200 million more in each year for the next six years.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the public do not have an unlimited appetite for handing money over to the BBC? Is it not the case that the best way further to undermine confidence in the licence fee is to keep putting it up?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that the Opposition recognise the achievements and importance of the BBC. He cannot have it both ways: if we recognise the importance of the BBC and if we want it to continue to achieve into the new century and into the digital age, it must be properly funded. The settlement that I announced today does that.
The hon. Gentleman said that what we are doing breaches the original five-year settlement. It is, indeed, the case that the fourth and fifth years of that settlement will be breached by the new settlement. However, the previous settlement was put in place long before any of us was aware of the rapid take-up of digital television


and the rapid development of new digital services. That settlement dictated the timing of the Davies report. The changes that have occurred led the Davies committee to conclude that it would be "incoherent" to maintain the previous formula.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Treasury implications of today's announcement regarding the over-75s and whether it had been taken into account. The answer is yes, it has been taken into account. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to put in place funding of £300 million for the over-75s concession.
The hon. Gentleman also asked who will undertake the review of new services and whether there would be an element of independence in those reviews. The answer is yes, there will be an element of independence and the reviews will, of course, report to me, as I have the statutory authority to give approval or not.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any of the new education services would require my approval. The answer is yes. Any new services that the BBC undertakes will require my approval, and, under the settlement that I am establishing, consultation before that approval is given.
The hon. Gentleman asked a fundamental question about the purpose of the BBC in a digital age. We believe that the settlement is necessary because the BBC is a flagship for quality broadcasting and because it needs to increase its activities in its core services, in education, in developing interactive services, and in devolving services to the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Maxton: I assure my right hon. Friend that the vast majority of Labour Members welcome his statement and the Government's commitment to the long-term future of the BBC in a digital world.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Britain is to continue to play a major role in what is now genuinely a world of broadcasting, it can be led only by a strong, well-financed BBC? It cannot be led by any other broadcasting organisation in this country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of the money is used to digitalise the wonderful BBC archive so that it becomes available to a much wider audience through digital broadcasting and the Internet? Will he ensure that some of the money will be used to improve, develop and constantly update the superb BBC website, which is the envy of much of the world?

Mr. Smith: First, my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the global importance of the BBC. It is important that the BBC leads our efforts to make available our quality programming, which is often the finest in the world, to the rest of the world. Secondly, he asked about the digitalisation of the BBC archives. That is primarily a matter for the BBC, but I am sure that those who make the decisions will have heard his comments.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked about BBC Online, which is one of the BBC's best achievements. As part of the package we announced, we envisage the BBC basing further development of its interactive services on the success of BBC Online.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome what Liberal Democrats believe to be a well-considered and balanced

statement, which sets out a long-term, secure future for the BBC. If it is the Secretary of State's decision and not the Prime Minister's, I congratulate him on abandoning the idea of a digital licence fee supplement, which would have been an unwarranted poll tax.
I also welcome the ambitious targets that the Secretary of State has set for efficiency savings in the BBC. Will there be constant monitoring by the Department to ascertain whether the BBC is making those savings? The Secretary of State stated his intention to introduce further increases in the licence fee beyond those agreed for this year. Will they depend on the BBC's efficiency savings being met?
I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to take external views on the BBC's finances. Why was not the NAO mentioned in his statement? Will it be given a specific role to monitor the BBC's finances in the years ahead?
I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to open processes. Will the House and the other place have the opportunity for an annual debate on the matters to which he referred today so that Members are able to assess whether the BBC is fulfilling the commitments that the Secretary of State outlined this afternoon?
I deplore the fact that the digital licence fee has been trailed in the newspapers in the past few days, with clear suggestions of the final decision. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is not his intention to use Parliament simply as an official stamp for press stories that appear on the previous day? Did he authorise the briefing of newspapers on the matter? If not, will he investigate why the stories appeared in the newspapers yesterday and explain the reasons to Parliament?

Mr. Smith: On the hon. Gentleman's last and very serious point, the newspaper stories were so off the mark in their speculation that they did not provide a pre-emptive view of the statement. On the rest of his remarks, I hope that the proposals are well-balanced. They acknowledge that the BBC deserves additional funding, but we want much greater efficiency and much better scrutiny of what it does in return. He asked whether there would be an impact on the licence fee settlement if the BBC failed to make the savings that we want it to make. The answer is yes. We intend to hold it very firmly to the efficiency targets that we have put in place.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the role of the NAO. We considered the Davies committee proposal about its role carefully, but made our decision for two reasons. First, the NAO does not have the expertise in fair trading issues and the division between commercial and public sector activity that we require in this exercise, and so is perhaps not the most appropriate body. Secondly, and perhaps more important, a political role is not appropriate in taking on such a degree of scrutiny of the BBC's finances. The detailed scrutiny is best done by an independent body, but its report should be made openly to the House of Commons and made available for scrutiny by it.

Mr. David Winnick: Are not a number of Tory MPs increasingly coming round to the view that the BBC, or a large chunk of it, should be privatised and given over to those who dominate the commercial sector? Needless to say, that would be the


most undesirable outcome. The concessionary scheme for pensioners has been criticised by the Tories from their Front Bench, but in government did not they oppose changing the system at every opportunity and deny pensioners the concession that the Government are introducing later this year?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Tories continued their opposition even when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his welcome announcement a few months ago. A Conservative was reported as saying that the concession was an "empty gesture". It is not; it is of real importance to many thousands of people.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to that answer, the Government appear to have taken a bad and inequitable system and made it worse. Now there is division not only between people in different homes, but between ages. However, we have got a start date out of them at last. The Chancellor made the announcement and passed the buck to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The DCMS has passed the buck to the BBC. Has the Department considered whether it will make available the relevant age and age-related information to enable the BBC to implement the proposal by 1 November? Given that the Government, for the first time, are paying £300 million in direct grant to the BBC, how long will it be before the Government begin to exercise political control over it?

Mr. Smith: We have chosen such a mechanism for implementing the concession for those aged 75 and over precisely because we do not want the Government to exercise political control over the BBC. Provided that primary legislation can be passed to enable it to do so, and as soon as that happens, the Department of Social Security will make details of everyone aged 75 and over available to the BBC so that they can be contacted.

Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the widespread support given in evidence to the Select Committee for the principle of the licence fee, notably from BSkyB and the independent television sector, but also from virtually every witness other than Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie of Talksport? Does he also welcome the fall in licence fee evasion rates in recent years, which has been achieved largely by easy-payment schemes? Will he encourage the BBC to develop such schemes, particularly to allow monthly rather than quarterly payment of the licence fee?

Mr. Smith: I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the wide support for the principle of the licence fee, and agree with him about the need to ensure that we have a properly funded BBC. I also agree with him about the need to ensure that easy-payment schemes are more readily available: that, indeed, is an element of the package that I have announced.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the majority view expressed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which contains a majority of Labour Members, that the BBC should not be given any further funds until the completion of a proper review of its services, and of what it should be doing in a multi-media age. Is the right hon.

Gentleman also aware that many people will be very cross about having to pay more extra tax to watch their television sets—especially pensioners aged between 60 and 74, who are already angry about being left out of the Government's arrangements for free licences for those over 75?

Mr. Smith: Not giving the BBC further funds to enable it to ensure that its core services remain good, worth watching and of real quality, and that it can take a lead in developing new digital services, would render the country lacking in a high-quality BBC into the future. That is not a future that I—or, indeed, those to whom the hon. Lady refers—want.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on standing up to the poodles of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black on the Opposition Benches. Does he agree not just that the BBC represents excellent value for money, but that public service broadcasting is still one of the things that this country does better than any other?
My right hon. Friend spoke of efficiency savings. Will he ensure that the BBC makes those savings within the army of bureaucrats, managers and accountants that it has appointed in the last 10 or 15 years, and not among programme makers?

Mr. Smith: I say a robust yes to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I note with great pleasure that in his very first statements as director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke has said that he intends to do precisely that.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The House enjoyed the irony in the Secretary of State's announcement that he had come to the House "at the very earliest opportunity". He went on to say that his financial proposals should be enough, without specifying for what BBC role they were to be enough. Does he agree that if you do not know where you are trying to go, any road will get you there?

Mr. Smith: I much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's succinct analysis of the Tory party in its current condition.
We have made it very clear where we want the BBC to go. We want to ensure that it can be a quality programme maker into the future, providing good programmes for the entire population, and that it continues to develop, in particular, education and interactivity services, and devolved services for the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Secretary of State rightly underlined the Government's support for and commitment to the future of the BBC. He specifically mentioned sport. Can he assure us that those who cannot afford satellite or cable television will still be able to see a fair measure of sport on the BBC?

Mr. Smith: I very much hope the BBC will continue to ensure that sport forms a key part of the menu of services that it offers on its channels. The listed events regulations require great national sporting events to be shown free-to-air in any case; but, in addition to that, the BBC must continue to view sport as part of its public service offering.

Mr. David Davis: I thank the Secretary of State for his letter to me about the


National Audit Office, although I did not receive it until 11 minutes before his statement. He will understand, however, if I press him a little on the question of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Despite the suggestion of the Davies panel, despite the recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and despite the right hon. Gentleman's own comment that the BBC will have to satisfy the House in regard to the proper use of its money, he has decided not to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General—the House's Officer—to have access to the BBC.
The answers that the right hon. Gentleman gave a number of hon. Members were ill briefed. He said that the NAO had no experience of fair trading issues. In the past few years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the NAO has conducted eight oversights of regulatory bodies. Six related to fair trading issues. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he needed to maintain the independence of the BBC. Over the past century, the NAO has overseen universities and maintained academic freedom. He has undermined that himself with the £300 million grant. He finished by saying that the reviews would report to him. Does he consider himself to be more independent than the CAG?

Mr. Smith: We considered very carefully the proposal from the Davies panel and from the Select Committee. The central question is how best to ensure that the BBC is opened up to the most effective scrutiny by the necessary experts, so that it maintains its fair trading commitments and has proper and robust financial systems in place. Our judgment was that that is best done by independent analysts reporting publicly, so that their analysis can be tested in debate and by questioning by the Select Committee. That is the best way to go forward.

Ms Claire Ward: I welcome the concessions that my right hon. Friend has set out and the scrutiny that will take place of the BBC. However, when the BBC appeared before the Select Committee, it was unable to give a convincing explanation of why it wanted the extra funding and of what it would do with it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that account is given of that money and that scrutiny takes place, so that the situation that we have with News 24 does not arise again? A vast sum of money is being spent but there is no accountability to licence fee payers.

Mr. Smith: I can indeed assure my hon. Friend of that. It is precisely because the £700 million demand from the BBC was not well put together that we have concluded that it was not the appropriate figure to go for. Any new services, any development of efficiency in what the BBC is doing at the moment, and any spending of the additional funds that are being made available to it will be subject to the clearest scrutiny and the most open processes.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which will be reasonably well received in Wales, particularly the news that there will not be a tax on digital knowledge. May I ask him for more reassurances that the cost-efficiency savings that he is seeking from the BBC should not be to the diminution

of English-language BBC programmes in Wales? In fact, we should be working towards the setting up of an English-language digital service for Wales.

Mr. Smith: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that any cost-efficiency savings that we demand of the BBC will not be at the cost of important public service programmes such as English-language programmes in Wales.

Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he assure me of two things: first, that local radio stations will also be able to have access to digital broadcasting—for example, BBC Radio Northampton would want to provide services in that spectrum; and secondly, that, if the licence fee is to increase, it is important for the BBC to ensure that everyone can receive it?
The whole of the east of my constituency is unable to get any BBC or other terrestrial channel because they are all wired up for cable television. Even if people pay the licence fee, they will have to pay cable charges on top to get TV. It is important that people should be able to get the BBC, particularly if they are paying increased licence access to fee charges.

Mr. Smith: In response to my hon. Friend's question about digital radio, it is the case that digital radio is expected to roll out probably rather more slowly than digital television and will encompass local as well as national stations. On her key point about everyone having access to BBC services, I have made it clear that, before any overall switch-over from analogue to digital can take place, digital services, including BBC services, must be receivable by everyone who has a television set at the moment.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: At a time when virtually every day seems to bring news of another agreement that will break down the distinction between traditional types of media and the new internet technologies, is it not increasingly clear that a nationalised institution that is prevented—and rightly so for as long as it remains a nationalised institution—from fully taking part in the multi-media world is in severe danger of becoming an anachronism?

Mr. Smith: It is precisely because the BBC has done so exceptionally well in the development of BBC Online, which brings together traditional and new interactive media, that we wish to ensure that funding is available for such services to be developed in the future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How, in the Secretary of State's beguiling words, is BBC Scotland to be enhanced? What can he offer the BBC World Service to prevent the closure of some of its valuable services, which are certainly worth more than missiles?

Mr. Smith: The BBC has in mind the need to develop further services for Scotland. How it sets about doing that will be a matter of considerable public discussion in the next few months. The subvention to the World Service is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not me. My hon. Friend's question would more appropriately be addressed to him.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is unjust that


an old person living in a property specially designed for pensioners can obtain a low-priced television licence only if the property is owned by a council, a charity or a housing association? Is not that terribly unfair to those living in identical accommodation that happens to be privately owned? I know that the Secretary of State did not create the problem, but, as he is trying to change matters for the better, should he not at least look at that problem before he introduces new legislation?

Mr. Smith: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point, although, as he rightly points out, we inherited the situation and did not create it. We have tried to come up with the fairest and most achievable package of reforms for concessions. We believe that our package, which includes free television licences for the over-75s, half-price licences for blind people and the maintenance of the existing accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme, is achievable and affordable and the fairest that we could come up with.

Dr. Tony Wright: Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) ask what was so special about the BBC? Does anyone who has seen the fate of "News at Ten" not know the answer to that? As not a single voice has been raised in support of the digital supplement, may I raise mine? I know that the decision was politically difficult, but would it not have been the fairest solution, certainly in the absence of extra help for low-income households?

Mr. Smith: We considered the digital licence supplement option carefully. As I said in my statement, we decided that it would not be the best option, particularly because the take-up of digital is rising so rapidly. We intend to ensure that an overall switch to digital will take place between 2006 and 2010. Putting a

temporary measure in place that would fade out under the Davies formula as the date of switch-over arrived would not provide the BBC with the buoyancy that it requires. It was a difficult decision but on balance of argument we felt that it was better to go for a modest and gradual increase in the general licence fee.
My hon. Friend rightly says that to ask what is so special about the BBC is silly. It is self-evident that the BBC is a broadcaster of great quality, providing the people of this country with news, information and entertainment of the very highest quality. Indeed, it is one of the best things about Britain in this new global world. I want to ensure that we can maintain that.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome at least the fact that the Secretary of State said that the BBC is the hub of British cultural life, rather than claiming that for the millennium dome.
In its early years, the BBC avoided the ban on advertising in its broadcast media by having advertising in other media, such as the Radio Times and other publications, and by selling programmes overseas. Why did not the Secretary of State consider a third way for funding the BBC: having advertising on BBC Online using the new medium of the internet, and on some of the new digital channels, which are not the mainstream BBC, as BBC 1 and BBC 2 are? Many—not all—think that those traditional channels should continue to be funded as a public service.

Mr. Smith: Apart from the difficulties under the European Union state aid rules, we have no problem at all with the BBC taking advertising on any of its commercial services and publications. That is done at present, and there is much scope for expanding it further. We do not believe that it is right to have advertising on core BBC services.

Opposition Day

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Education

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes on the education motion only.

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
That this House notes the Government's failure to meet its manifesto commitment to spend a higher proportion of national income on education than the previous government, despite the Prime Minister's pledge that education would continue to have 'the first call on public resources'; deplores the Government's complacency in the face of the damage being done to excellence in education by increased bureaucracy, interference in schools, abolition of grant maintained status, introduction of grammar school ballots, obsession with targets and diversion of funds to meet political goals rather than the needs of schools; views with concern the Government's disregard for parental choice or student need; and calls on the Government to introduce common sense policies to improve standards by setting schools free, letting parents choose and trusting the professionals.
In the general election campaign, the mantra of the then Leader of the Opposition was that his Government's priority would be education, education, education. Since then, the Labour Government have broken their manifesto commitment to increase the share of national income spent on education; introduced tuition fees, despite pledging that they had no plans to do so; abolished grant-maintained status; introduced rigged ballots to get rid of grammar schools; presided over a rise in average class sizes and in the proportion of pupils in classes of 31 or more; underfunded the teachers' pay award; produced mountains of red tape, with 400 regulations and about 1,000 circulars; caused the closure of about 2,000 pre-schools and playgroups; presided over a fall in the rate of improvement of standards in literacy and numeracy; introduced discrimination against English students in Scotland; cut spending per pupil; cut spending per student in higher education; put school sixth forms under threat; and pensioned off heads who would not do what they told them.
Andy Warhol said that, in the future, everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. This Government will be famous for their 15 failures in education. As they have failed to deliver on their promises and presided over the beginning of a fall in standards, what has their reaction been? Typically of a Labour party that lives by press release and photo-opportunity, they have tried to spin themselves out of the problem. Far from education, education, education, we have had spin, trickery, betrayal.
Let us consider education funding. The Labour party manifesto pledged to spend a higher proportion of the national income on education. What happened in the Government's first three years? The proportion of national income spent on education went down. Ministers may say that it is not fair to consider only one or two years, so I will be generous to the Government and consider the average of education spending over the previous and the present Government. The answer is still clear.

Under the Conservative Government, an average of 5 per cent. of national income was spent on education; in the five years of this Government, it will be 4.7 per cent.
Let us consider what that means in actual money. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that my figures are untrue, but they are independent figures produced by the Library.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The figures that the hon. Lady put out in her press release today attempt to show what she has just described, but they do so by taking only the first three years of this Parliament and not including the full comprehensive spending review. In the previous Parliament, there was a fall of 0.3 per cent. in gross domestic product spent on education, and there will have been an increase of 0.2 per cent. of GDP as a proportion of national income in this Parliament.

Mrs. May: As this is Maths Year 2000, I suggest that the Secretary of State has a few maths lessons. The source of my figures is the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My right hon. Friend is right.

Mrs. May: No, he is not right. Average spending by the last Conservative Government was 5 per cent. of national income and over the term of this Government, including the comprehensive spending review, it will be 4.7 per cent.
What does that mean in actual money? Just to keep spending at the same level as the previous Government, Labour would need to put in not an extra £19 billion, as the Government have claimed, but an extra £32 billion. They are already £13 billion short even of keeping level with the previous Government's spending on education. That is the reality of another broken promise.
What do the Government claim to be doing? They are announcing more money, more money, more money and more money. Indeed, the money for one programme has been announced 21 times. It is little surprise that, when they said education, education, education, they even had to announce that key policy three times. Every time that they announce more money, people think that it is new money, but it is not. We have looked at the Government's announcements of extra money for education in the past nearly three years and we have added them up. Do they come to the £19 billion that the Government told us that they would spend, or the £32 billion that they would need to spend to keep up with the last Conservative Government? No, they add up to £185 billion of extra spending on education—the equivalent of the Swedish GDP. It is a deliberate attempt by the Government to prove that they are doing something that they are not. They are saying one thing and doing another.
Tell that figure to the secondary school I visited on Friday, which says that it cannot even afford paper for its pupils. Tell that to the Queen Elizabeth high school in Hexham, which has written an open letter to the Secretary of State saying:
Our goodwill is being severely tested by poor staff facilities in deteriorating buildings, by relentlessly increasing class sizes and by a lack of money to invest in the kinds of support which teachers need if they are to succeed.


We would welcome an explanation from you as to how, when faced with new challenges to meet, including Curriculum 2000, a real terms cut in the budget is being proposed for our school. This can only lead to a deterioration in our already unsatisfactory working environment and, ultimately, a deterioration in student achievement.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, as she mentioned Hexham in Northumberland. Only this morning, the letter she is reading out appeared in the Newcastle edition of The Journal, and it was signed by 15 heads of high schools in Northumberland, all complaining of cuts and even suggesting that there has been a 1 per cent. cut in the Northumberland education authority budget.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have visited schools in Northumberland and heard directly from them the genuine concerns that they have about the funding problems that they face. They hear what the Secretary of State tells them about money going into education, but they do not see it in their budgets. What they see are deteriorating conditions for their pupils.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: In my constituency, the standard spending assessment per pupil—in real terms, at 2000–2001 prices—fell from £2,578 in 1992 to £2,464 at the end of the previous Government's term of office. Since then, it has increased to £2,591 under this Government—an all-time high, and higher than it ever was under a Tory Government.

Mrs. May: I am pleased to say that Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire county council has increased the amount spent on education above the SSA level. It is spending more than the increase that the Government have proposed.
However, the problem of funding is not confined to Northumberland. A letter sent out to parents of a school in Dorset stated:
The general view being given is that Education is receiving substantial increases in funding from Central Government leading to higher level of funding in individual schools. The fact is that most of this increased funding is targeted at specific initiatives and Dorset County Council is required to make an equal contribution. School budgets in Dorset are at best standing still and in many cases reducing.
From the Isles of Scilly authority, the Tresco Times stated:
Education, education, education—

Mr. Blunkett: The silly times.

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State chooses to laugh, but I remind him that the Isles of Scilly authority is this country's best-performing local education authority. It has said:
Education, education, education. That was Mr. Blair's sound bite at the last election. Remember? Now the best Primary Schools in the country are coming under threat.
Teachers and parents are becoming increasingly frustrated that the Government are all mouth and no delivery, and that the failure to deliver is damaging excellence in education. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it funny, but the Government are letting children down.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not think it funny, but it is amusing that the hon. Lady should cite figures relating to the Isles

of Scilly authority, which has a cohort of 1,500 and no secondary school. Moreover, that LEA has invited me to open the extra facilities paid for by the new deal for schools.

Mrs. May: I suggest that the Secretary of State prepare himself for the comments that he may hear from those schools. However, I am interested in what is happening in all this country's schools, not just in the chosen few. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not want to reject the Isles of Scilly simply because that LEA does not have any secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman says that what is happening in those primary schools does not matter and that they should not be quoted as an example, yet the parents and teachers involved are worried about what is happening as a result of this Government's failure to deliver on their education pledges.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem goes further than the amount of money that is not getting to the chalk face? The Government made another promise before the election. Labour party spokesmen—they are Ministers now—said that a Labour Government would equalise the amounts of funding available to counties, and that they would resolve that problem in their first year in office. However, the Government are now saying that they will not even consider the matter until after the next election. When the Minister for School Standards was asked about that, she said that Staffordshire and other counties should not worry and that Wigan and Poole were worse off than Lichfield.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intend to comment on some of the funding inequities that exist between the education authorities. The Government promised to sort out the problem inside one year but, three years on, they have not even started looking at the matter. That is yet another broken promise—another of the Government's failures to deliver on one of the pledges that they made when they took office.

Mr. Tom King: If the Secretary of State is going to make fun of the Scilly Isles, perhaps, on the way there, he might be encouraged to call in to the secondary school in Somerset that I visited on Friday. They were discussing whether full-time teachers or part-time assistants, in one form or another, would have to have their hours cut, how great the reductions would be and how strange they found it that, three years into education, education, education, they should be facing such a situation.

Mrs. May: My right hon. Friend rightly points out the very real decisions that schools have to take against the background of the Government's failure. The Secretary of State always quotes broad figures, but the reality is what is happening in schools in Somerset, such as that to which my right hon. Friend referred. Difficult, harsh decisions are being taken about teaching staff and classroom assistant redundancies, reductions in the number of courses and the inability to buy the equipment and books needed for the school. That is the reality of this Government's education policies. Yet they continue to try to spin themselves out of the problem.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the situation in Gloucestershire? I had a letter from the Secretary of State, informing me that Gloucestershire local education authority, already one of the lowest funded of any county, was this year to receive a lower-than-average increase in standard spending assessment while having an above-average increase in the number of pupils. Gloucestershire LEA is so poor that it cannot afford to apply for the full amount of the new deal in schools, which the Secretary of State makes so much of, because it cannot produce the match funding. How should I respond to the teachers and head teachers in Gloucestershire who, for the second year running, have had a standstill budget for their schools?

Mrs. May: The answer to the head teachers and governors in those schools is that that is a direct result of the Government's education policies.
The spin does not even stop there. On several occasions, Ministers have said in the House that the Government are increasing the spending per pupil by £200. Yet the figures show that the average spending per pupil under this Government is more than £50 less than that under the previous Conservative Government. That is nothing new. We already knew that the average spending per student in higher education was £135 less under this Government than under the previous one—and that from a Government whose Prime Minister promised only last December that education will continue to have the first call on public resources. Or perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us this afternoon that that was just an aspiration.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: While my hon. Friend is talking about the use of resources, would she care to comment on a matter that is raised repeatedly with me at schools in my constituency by teachers, head teachers and governors, about the amount of money that the Government spend on glossy brochures? They are besieging teachers and governors with vast amounts of publicity material containing Government spin—there is nothing in them to help with teaching, nothing to help pupils.

Jacqui Smith: Like what? Name just one.

Mr. Hawkins: Every day, another glossy brochure arrives. If the Government spent less money on them, would that not be better for education?

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was in a primary school recently, where the head teacher pointed to a bookshelf full of glossy Government publications. She said that she wished that she had only a very small percentage of the money that was being spent on those to spend in her school. Perhaps the Secretary of State could offer to stop publishing his speeches in glossy publications—that would save a little money.
The Government, faced with the reality of their actions, will never take responsibility for them. They always try to blame the local education authorities. The Secretary of State is keen to tell us how much more money LEAs are getting for education—he can even get the figure up to an increase of more than 8 per cent.—but those are fantasy figures. The actual amount of money received by the authorities is much less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out. However,

I do not need to rely on my hon. Friends to point that out to me. The Secretary of State told us so—at least, he told that to the School Teachers Review Body in a letter written last December.

Mr. Blunkett: That is old news.

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State says that they heard that last week. I am sorry, but I am going to quote a different part of the letter today. Is the Secretary of State saying that he is embarrassed about his letter to the School Teachers Review Body, and that he does not want his words to be repeated so that more people understand the reality of his actions?
In the letter, the Secretary of State said—far from the 8 per cent. increase that he had claimed local authorities would receive—that
some authorities have receive grant increases which would make a pay award much greater than inflation difficult to handle. For example, Newcastle has an education uplift of only 3.47 per cent., Sunderland has 3.44 per cent. and Middlesbrough has 3.67 per cent.
That does not sound like more than 8 per cent. to me—even if the Department has its figures right.
Imagine the consternation in Leicestershire when the local education authority—the lowest-funded shire county authority—was told that its share of the £50 million Government grant to LEAs would be £8,000. Leicestershire had been given the figure for the Isles of Scilly, and every LEA was told the wrong grant figure. How much did that piece of departmental incompetence cost schools?
Leicestershire is a member of the new deal-fair deal group—formerly G40—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) wrote to the press to point out the absurdity of the Government's position. If Leicestershire county council spent what the Government advise, it would have to cut education spending by £85 a pupil. Instead, the council—under a Conservative leader—is increasing education spending.
The Secretary of State does not even listen when authorities want to discuss funding with him. Last November, the chairman of the regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside wrote to the Secretary of State about education funding. He wrote to the permanent secretary in late January on the same subject. In his letter, he said:
One common problem we face … is the relatively poor level of funding for education in the region that is available through the Standard Spending Assessment when compared with other regions, not to mention Scotland.
The chairman was writing on his own behalf, and for the chairmen of all the local authorities in Yorkshire. He has yet to receive a reply.
The Government try to blame LEAs, but are simultaneously increasing control over what the authorities do. More and more, money is made available only if the LEA does what the Government tell it to. In a letter to me on 25 January, the Minister for School Standards said that
£50 million extra grant … will go to all local education authorities.


However, some authorities, such as Shropshire, have been told that they will receive the money only if they do as the Government say they should on their SSAs.
The best example of central control is the standards fund. The money will be spent on the Government's priorities, not on the priorities of the schools. With this Government, children come last.

Liz Blackman: As the debate is on education, and fundamentally, therefore, about children, will the hon. Lady mention improved standards at some point?

Mrs. May: If the hon. Lady had been listening to the beginning of my speech, she would have heard me quote comments from teachers to the effect that the problems caused by her Government's failure to deliver in education are causing a real threat to school standards. That is the reality of the situation. The hon. Lady may shrug her shoulders, but I suggest that she visits schools in Northumberland, because that was the view expressed by a school in Hexham and in others in that county.
Under the standards fund, Labour-controlled Luton is receiving the equivalent of £114 pupil while Conservative-controlled Wokingham receives less than £55. Is that fair funding? The Government said that there would be a cap on the amount of money in the standards fund, but the proportion of education total spending provided through the fund will rise from 1.8 to 7.6 per cent. The point is that that money is being spent on what the Government think right, not on what schools think right. Schools should be given budgets and the freedom to decide what is right for them. It is common sense to say that heads and teachers know best what is right in the classroom. We want freedom for schools—not departmental dictatorship. The greatest madness in the Government's funding figures is that Sheffield has to cut school budgets in order to obtain access to Government funding—robbing Peter to pay Paul.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to bureaucracy. Much is spent on that. We asked teachers about bureaucracy and they told us:
Bureaucracy has increased massively since the Labour Government came to power.
They confirmed that bureaucracy had certainly increased, saying:
The bureaucratic burden on heads is such that being with children in a classroom occasionally has to be firmly held as a priority or is lost under tides of policies and administration.
The damage to schools and to children's education does not stop with funding and with increased bureaucracy. One of the Government's first acts was to abolish grant-maintained status, despite their manifesto commitment that
Schools that are now grant maintained will prosper with Labour's proposals.
Prosper—as their budgets fall, as they are forced to make teachers redundant, as they are forced to cut back on courses or as they ask parents to pay? Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to ask the Prime Minister about that last point.
Another of Labour's promises that bit the dust when they came into office was that grammar schools were safe in their hands. In a letter of 10 February 1997 about Wirral, the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, wrote:
Let me put the record straight. A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
However, the guarantee went further. In 1997, the Secretary of State said:
There's no threat to the continuance of the grammar schools or to their ethos or their quality.
He said that he had felt "enormous energy" when he had visited Wirral grammar school for girls. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will need only the energy to run away from parents who see their children's educational chances being taken away by the Government.

Mr. Blunkett: The energy that I felt came from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who broke into the school because I was there. He even tried to persuade the press to join him, although the head and the governors had banned him from the school.

Mrs. May: I am not certain that that intervention added anything to the debate. It merely suggests that the Secretary of State always runs away when he sees my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I am not surprised that the Secretary of State wants to change the subject, because he gets a little nervous when we talk about selection. Under the Labour Government, specialist schools can select pupils according to aptitude. Under the right hon. Gentleman's excellence in cities programme, schools can select between 5 and 10 per cent. of their pupils according to ability. That is the man who said, at a Labour party conference in 1995:
watch my lips: no selection by examination or interview".
The right hon. Gentleman was pressed on that matter in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, who pointed out that the excellence in cities programme states that selection
will be based in significant measure on the results of National Curriculum tests, public examinations and other available tests data".
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Well they self-select so it's not a selection process based on a one-off examination … This is not about saying a small elite must be selected, must be educated well and, and, and …
He trailed off, because he had failed to understand that, under the excellence in cities programme, he accepts selection in schools, but that he denies some schools the opportunity to continue to be selective.
At present, a ballot for grammar schools is taking place in Ripon. Parents are working not only to save a grammar school but to protect the school system in that town. Ripon grammar school and Ripon college have both served that town well for a long time. One of the greatest problems faced by parents is uncertainty, because of the disruption that will be caused if the school structure is changed, should the vote go against the grammar school.
The Government have failed on so many of their pledges. They have failed on their class size pledge: average class sizes are going up and the proportion of


pupils in classes of more than 31 is going up. Tell Bob Bushell up at Northfold county primary school in Cleveleys that class sizes are falling; he has to teach a class of 41. Yet again, we see the Government failing to deliver on their pledges in education.
The Government promised that their priority would be education, education, education. They have failed to deliver on their pledge to support grammar schools. They have failed to deliver on their pledge to let grant-maintained schools prosper. Class sizes are rising, bureaucracy is burgeoning and spending per pupil and spending per—

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: Too late. I am sorry; I am just coming to the conclusion.

Jacqui Smith: This is the climax.

Mrs. May: I am just coming to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I really have heard enough from the Under-Secretary. That is not the way to behave on the Front Bench.

Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government have failed to deliver on their pledge to support grammar schools. They have failed to let grant-maintained schools prosper. Class sizes are rising. Bureaucracy is burgeoning. The Government have failed to deliver on their funding pledges. It is little wonder that one teacher has told us:
Look, I have never voted Conservative before, but there is one thing that might make me do so next time—this current Government.
Instead of education, education, education, we have had spin, trickery, betrayal. Labour is letting our children down. This country needs the commonsense policies that will give freedom to schools, allow parents to choose, trust the professionals, raise standards, provide the education that is right for every child and lead to excellence in education—commonsense policies that will be delivered only by a Conservative Government.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's commitment to raising standards and achieving excellence for all from the early years to life-long learning after 18 years of neglect; recognises that education spending will rise as a share of national income over the course of this Parliament, in contrast to a decline of 0.3 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1996–97; recognises the early success in lowering class sizes in the early years and the achievement of introducing the literacy and numeracy strategies which, with the hard work and commitment of teachers, have raised standards; supports the promotion of diversity which will deliver excellence for the many and not the few; recognises the role of specialist schools and the importance of excellence in cities; supports the drive to raise standards in

secondary schools through the extension of the literacy and numeracy strategies and an expanded programme of summer schools; recognises the value of teachers and supports the new proposals for performance-related promotion; recognises the role of school leaders; notes the increase of £1.8 billion in funding for schools and Local Education Authorities in England for the coming year and the role of the fair funding framework in tackling excessive bureaucracy and ensuring that increased funding benefits classroom services; notes the increased resources made available to expand access and improve quality in further and higher education; and supports the Government's determination to build a socially inclusive knowledge economy in which learning and skills are the foundation of success and prosperity.".
I wish to address the motion in a way that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) failed to do. She spent two thirds of her speech advocating that more money be spent on education. No Conservative spokesman could display greater cheek than the hon. Lady does in lecturing us on education spending. Over the period of the last Conservative regime, spending was slashed in real terms. In 1995, as the Conservatives started to slash education spending, governors, parents and teachers took to the streets even of market towns—even in places such as Maidenhead, which the hon. Lady represents—to march. They did so because they could feel the impact, in terms of what was happening in the classroom, what was happening to teachers and what was happening to the buildings around them.
If we examine just a little of what the hon. Lady is saying in the light of what happened to education under Conservative Governments and what is happening under ours, we shall obtain a better picture of the real legacy that she and her colleagues bequeathed to us.
Back in 1995, people were on the streets demanding an end to the retrenchment that had led to schools without books, to crumbling classrooms, to a total failure to introduce any policy on information and communication technology, to a failure to implement any form of literacy and numeracy strategy, to a lack of any form of programme to reward teachers, and to the absence of any method of relaxing the curriculum to allow teachers—in the language of the Conservative motion—the freedom to determine for themselves how to set about the task.
Although the hon. Lady did not mention the fact, the motion speaks of the
obsession with targets and diversion of funds to meet political goals".
Well, I plead entirely guilty to that. Those political goals are absolutely clear. We made a class size pledge. In infant schools, there were 485,000 youngsters in classes of over 30; now there are 171,000, and the number is falling. In primary education, for 10 years, class sizes increased year on year; for the first time, we have stabilised and reduced them. Average class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios are falling for the first time in 10 years.
Yes, we have made a commitment to introduce sure start programmes to invest in the foundations of children's education and development. Yes, we have used ring-fenced money, which did not go into the revenue support grant, specifically to introduce new provision for the early years, to ensure that all four-year-olds have the choice of a nursery place, if their parents wish it, and to double the places available for three-year-olds. Under the Tories, there was no programme; there was simply a voucher system for four-year-olds. That is what we inherited. We have insisted that there should be an


improvement in the adult-pupil ratio in our schools; so, over the next two and a half years, 20,000 teaching assistants—directly paid for with ring-fenced money—will be available.
The hon. Lady mentioned Sheffield. Through excellence in cities, we have now ensured that match funding does not have to be found in the six major conurbations to which the earmarked, specialist funding is provided. We will therefore be able to transform the life chances of children in our major cities and we will do what the previous Conservative Government never did—target resources where they are really needed.

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State has referred to the fact that the 100 per cent. grant will now be given to schools in the excellence in cities areas. Will he confirm that schools will be able to receive 100 per cent. of the grant only if the local authority puts in its full bid for standards fund money?

Mr. Blunkett: An authority will have the money available to put in the initial amount only if it actually applies for the money in the first place. That is certainly true. The standards fund, to which the hon. Lady referred, is additional ring-fenced money over and above the revenue support grant and has been applied directly to the policies that she has dismissed: namely, those targeted political policies known as the literacy and the numeracy strategies. Far from undermining the life chances of children, those strategies are beginning to transform them.
Why did we set about the ring-fenced, earmarked and targeted funding that the hon. Lady mentioned? Why have we taken the actions that we have? It was because, when we took office, four out of 10 children could not read, write or add up properly at the age of 11. The hon. Lady can judge whether that is a legacy to be proud of.

Helen Jones: Is my right hon. Friend surprised, as I am, that the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made no mention of the latest Ofsted report? In it, the chief inspector of schools refers to rising standards, particularly at key stage 2, and says:
This is a very significant and promising development, which is directly linked to the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies".
Why does my right hon. Friend think that there was no mention of that in the hon. Lady's speech?

Mr. Blunkett: Because the hon. Lady never attempted once to talk about what is happening in the classroom to improve the life chances or achievement of children. In fact, I am not sure how many times she mentioned children other than to suggest that, somehow, what was needed was the extra money that the Conservative Government had not allocated to them. It was the height of jiggery-pokery, to use a slightly different term.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: That has got people going. Which of the pokery and jiggery shall I give way to first? How about the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)?

Mr. Eric Pickles: When the right hon. Gentleman examined the Ofsted reports, did he

see the report on the St. Martin's school and the Anglo-European school in my constituency, which were designated exceptional secondary schools? The reward to those schools and other secondary schools in my constituency is to lose £1.2 million funding this year and to face the prospect of having to make teachers redundant and reducing education provision for my constituents. Is that any way to reward excellence?

Mr. Blunkett: I am very happy to consider the school in question—the Anglo-European school. We shall ensure that we make access available to it and that we examine its resources. However, we have given absolute guarantees to the schools that the hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned and which receive additional funding because they are grant maintained, rather than because of their pupil numbers or particular circumstances. We have given absolute guarantees of continued funding in real terms and we shall continue to ensure that those schools are supported.
I believe the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was among those who wished to intervene earlier.

Mr. John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State understand how offensive it can seem to someone teaching in a primary school on the Isles of Scilly or in a primary school in Wokingham that has had its funding cut when he laughs at the name of the Isles of Scilly, which has real educational problems, and when he authorises large sums of expenditure on glossy brochures to publish his own speeches and other words from the Department for Education and Employment? Is not that the wrong priority? Will he now say sorry, and will he say that more money will be made available to primary schools in need?

Mr. Blunkett: I did not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, laugh at the education system in the Isles of Scilly. Certainly I laughed at the attempt by the hon. Member for Maidenhead to draw conclusions for England as a whole from the situation in the Isles of Scilly, where the Government are protecting, and will continue to protect through our small schools fund, schools that would otherwise have been threatened by the actions and policies of the previous Government.
Under that Government, there was no small schools fund and no attempt to ensure that schools could stay open by linking technology, by co-operative working and by pulling schools together instead of making them compete with each other. There is now a fund specifically to provide small primary schools with administrative support so that head teachers are free to do their job. All that is entirely new and did not exist under the previous Government.
I shall not apologise for putting out the speech on the future of secondary education from the north of England conference, because secondary education had been grossly neglected by the previous Government, standards had not been maintained and almost a third of children in the first year of secondary schools found themselves going backwards. We face a major issue in tackling the under-achievement in our secondary sector: to provide diversity, to increase specialism and to ensure that we have a truly comprehensive system.
Nor do I apologise for putting out a major statement on the future of higher education—an issue that the previous Government ducked time and time again. The hon. Lady


had the audacity to say that we were cutting funding per pupil. Between 1989 and 1997, there was a cut of £2,500 per university student, and we have reversed 36 per cent. of that. We have cut the efficiency gains to 1 per cent., as recommended by Dearing. We have put in £1.1 billion—an increase of 11 per cent. in real terms—over the three years of the spending review, and we have lifted the cap on numbers.

Mrs. May: As the Secretary of State has specifically referred to Dearing and the 1 per cent. efficiency gains, will he comment on the remarks of the Association of University Teachers—that current expenditure plans not only do not provide for tuition fee income to be additional income but go well beyond Dearing's call for 1 per cent. efficiency gains for two years, amounting to aplan for cuts of this level for the remainder of the current spending plans"?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept that for a moment. We announced that we would retain the 1 per cent. cuts that we introduced rather than the enormous 4 per cent. real terms cuts that were taking place under the previous Government, and we have said that we will do so throughout the remainder of this spending review. We have put in an extra £295 million for 2001, bringing the total increase, as I said, to 11 per cent. in real terms. We have every intention in the spending review of ensuring that we maintain a world-class university system that is open, equal and equitable for all students, not just those who can afford it.
Over and above the revenue support grant increase of 5.4 per cent. for the coming year, we have funded the teachers' pay award. The better teachers do, the better we shall pay them, and we shall encourage their professional development and provide performance-related promotion. That is all ring-fenced money on top of the amount available in the revenue support grant, and responds entirely to schools that ask us to ensure that when there are substantial changes of that sort, they get the money directly, rather than through the standard spending assessment.

Mr. John Bercow: In order that Conservative Members, at least, may prick up our ears in readiness, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House at what point in his speech he intends to refer to, and to apologise for, the massive damage that he inflicted on children's education during his tenure as leader of Sheffield city council?

Mr. Blunkett: That beggars belief. Let me put the facts on the record. I accept responsibility in respect of the city of Sheffield for the years 1980 to 1987. In 1985, a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate said that Sheffield's was one of the three best education authorities in the country. That was matched by an Audit Commission report that said that Sheffield's public services were "a shining example".
I stand on my record on education and the comparability of Sheffield with other cities. If I had my time again, I would have introduced 15 years ago some of the measures that the Government are introducing now. The children of Sheffield would have had a greater chance

of receiving a better education. However, at that time, we faced a Conservative Government who slashed public expenditure at every opportunity, denigrated public service, undermined the education system and encouraged people to go private. Anyone who looks back to those years should feel ashamed of the former Government's actions.
The Conservative Government allowed our schools—public buildings—to deteriorate to the extent that we have had to double expenditure just to return some of them to the state in which they provide an acceptable environment where teachers can teach and pupils can be taught. In two years' time, 11,000 schools will have benefited from the new deal for schools—a programme introduced, not with match funding, but with direct grant; not with credit approvals and borrowing, but with direct funding—to ensure that schools obtain the sort of investment that they never got under the previous Government. That is what we have been doing at every stage, through the standards fund work with head teachers and the new leadership college to bring about a transformation of management; through helping small schools; and through the improvement grants made under the standards fund.
The Opposition motion speaks of "setting schools free"; I am not sure what the Conservative notion of a free school is. It talks of parental choice, but so-called free schools are the ones that choose the child—that is what happened under the Conservative Government. The motion talks about "trusting the professionals", but the Conservatives have opposed the improvement of professional standards through professional development matched by increased pay—extra resources that will be in the pay packets of hundreds of thousands of teachers in the years to come. Instead of attacking the changes that the Labour Government have made, Conservative Members should take a leaf out of the shadow Chancellor's book and re-examine their policies to find ways of mirroring, matching and challenging us on the basis of improving standards.
We know that our schools need more resources and that greater investment is desirable; with our economic policies and our growth record, it will be possible for the Labour Government to achieve those goals. We also know that in the last three years of the Conservative Government, not only did the proportion of gross domestic product invested in education start to fall, but there were real-terms cuts in spending on primary education of £80 per pupil, pupil-teacher ratios worsened, and class sizes rocketed. In 1997, we inherited a budget profile that, had we implemented it, would have resulted in 15,000 teachers losing their jobs; instead, we immediately put in £835 million. We had promised to stabilise and freeze spending, but we did not; instead, we put in more money and saved schools from disaster. Then we started the process of investment.
Under the spending review, in the final three years of this Parliament, spending on education as a proportion of GDP will rise, based on the new European resource accounting model. It is no good quoting figures that do not compare like with like. The House of Commons Library is welcome to see the figures that we at the DFEE and the Treasury are using—figures that include not just revenue support, but all the ring-fenced resources that I


have described this afternoon, which are going into schools to raise standards and lift opportunities for our children.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. If we are to compare like with like, may I compare South Wigston high school in my constituency before and after the election? Before the election, the head teacher was able to increase the number of teachers and to improve and expand the buildings belonging to the school. Since the election, as a direct consequence of what the Government have done, the head teacher's income budget has fallen and he may have to get rid of three teachers. Will the right hon. Gentleman add that to the general problem that those of us who represent Leicestershire seats have found with his Government's policy on education spending?

Mr. Blunkett: We will take no lectures about the distribution of spending. We inherited what we have; we did not invent it. It was the hon. and learned Gentleman's Government who invented it, and we are doing our best to ensure that we get things right. I would welcome Conservative-controlled authorities presenting proposals for changes in standard spending assessment which they believe would be right and fair across the country. When they do so, through the Local Government Association, it will be possible to take them seriously.
If authorities are not—I hesitate to use the jargon term "passporting", in case sketch writers get their own back on us all, as they did last week, and a suitable reminder it was too—passing on the hard won resources that we are allocating to them, so that schools can spend that money on the improvement in standards that we are seeking, we will take action this summer to make sure that they do. For the first time, we have the figures. For the first time, we will know what is being spent on administration and bureaucracy, and we will be able to do something about it.

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment, as I have not given way to the Liberals yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is only one here."] In that case, I had better give way straight away.

Mr. Willis: May I assure the Secretary of State that what we lack in numbers, we make up in quality?
The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the standard spending assessment and the fact that it has not changed since the Government came in, as was promised. Will he admit, however, that with more and more funding being centrally directed, the time has come to stop the nonsense about maintaining a standard spending assessment, and to accept that the minimum entitlement that he expects schools to deliver through the curriculum should be funded by a minimum entitlement through his Department or through local authorities?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. There is a case to be made for a basic entitlement for pupils at various key stages. That debate should be set in the context of the review and the proposed Green Paper. I look forward to his party contributing constructively to that debate, as he has this afternoon.
The proof of the pudding is what is happening to children in schools and whether standards are rising. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to the chief inspector's report. At key stage 2, there have been a 10 percentage point improvement in numeracy and a five percentage point improvement in literacy in just one year, both of which were attributed by the chief inspector to the very literacy and numeracy programmes that have been denigrated by Opposition Members. GCSE and A-level results are improving year on year.
In the words of the chief inspector, over four out of every five schools have undergone an improvement in their teaching compared with the previous year. Lessons are judged to be good and improving. Those judged to be good have risen from 54 per cent. to 58 per cent. in just one year. Unsatisfactory lessons are down by a quarter on the previous year. Leadership and management are seen to be improving.
All that is happening around us—it is there for people to see. For the first time since the regime was introduced, more schools are coming out of special measures than are going in. A higher proportion of gross domestic product is being spent on education. Real improvements are taking place in the classroom, with an average of £4,000 being spent on additional books in every school. Those funds are provided directly by the Government, and do not come through the revenue support grant.
Whether we consider early-years and primary education, or the action that we are trying to take on diversity and specialism—such as beacon schools and excellence in secondary education in cities—or our programme for further and higher education, the Government put the people's money where the people's mouth is. We are improving the chances of every child in the country by intervening when necessary, supporting when appropriate, increasing professional development, paying teachers more, rewarding them well and celebrating success wherever it occurs.

Mr. Phil Willis: At the end of his remarks, the Secretary of State tried to address one of the saddest features of education debates—the impression that we often give the public and the press that our education system is failing and in total crisis. I reject that.
My party and I have often criticised Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. However, in this year's report, he made several positive statements. For example:
The quality of teaching has improved in all types of schools, in all subjects and in all year groups".
That is a positive message to send to our teachers. The report also states:
More headteachers are raising expectations and challenging and supporting their staff".
That is also positive. The report continues:
Nearly nine out of ten Secondary Schools inspected had a higher proportion of good teaching compared with the previous inspection".
Those comments need to be emphasised from our Benches. We must constantly tell our teachers, governors and heads that they are doing a good job.
Let us consider the improvements in GCSE results in the past 10 years. In 1989, 203,105 A to C results or their equivalents were gained compared with 278,300 last year.


A-level results give an indication of the number of students who stay on at school, or go to sixth form or further education colleges post 16. They have not even been mentioned in the debate. In 1989, 87,800 students had three or more A-levels compared with 151,300 students last year. That is a remarkable 80 per cent. increase in the number of students who obtain three or more A-levels. We should put it on record that we accept that our teachers, heads, governors and students are doing well in our schools. We should not accept the view that is commonly held in the Tory party and increasingly, I am sad to say, by the Government, that because the state provides the majority of a service, it must, by definition, be failing. It is not.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made interesting comments. I expected the vast majority of comments during a Tory Opposition day debate to be about the Tories' review of education and the lessons they had learned from 18 years in government and three years in opposition. After all, they have consulted widely about their policies, and introduced "The Common Sense Revolution". I wondered why the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) jumped on the back of a lorry to begin his latest disastrous campaign when he would have been better served by putting all the "Common Sense Revolution" documentation on the back of it and driving it to the nearest recycling plant. I go further; the latest common-sense utterances on education should carry the following health warning: "These policies, if implemented, could serious damage your child's education".
I cannot believe that after such a disastrous defeat in 1997, with education policies that had failed and been universally derided, Conservative Members should take the same tack, with the same philosophy that competition, division and fewer resources form the basis for a better education system.

Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how trusting parents and teachers could possibly damage children's education? Will he stop misrepresenting a policy that acknowledges the need for allocating proper sums of money?

Mr. Willis: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and say how marvellous it is that he attends debates regularly now that he is a Back Bencher. He was a serious Minister, but he has not once apologised for the gross underfunding of our schools, our colleges and our universities.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Answer the question.

Mr. Willis: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry; I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise profusely for that omission.
Nothing in the Conservatives' remarks today or their so-called revolution addresses the further education sector, which was set loose in a sea of confusion in 1993 with the sole aim of reducing the cost base in our FE colleges. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members to address the mounting problems in our

universities, where under-investment in teaching and research were the hallmarks of their Administrations. Instead, we hear puerile attacks on schools and local education authorities and solutions that are simple, but not credible. Successive Tory Governments undermined state education to almost total breaking point, but the common-sense answer is more of the same with knobs on.
The Conservatives' rallying cry is, "We will set our schools free." Free from what and from whom? According to the previous Government's Education Reform Act 1988, schools are free to carry out a vast array of tasks. What greater freedoms do they seek than those under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998?

Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman has made a couple of references to what he perceives as the failure of the Conservative party's education policies. Can he tell us which policies the Liberal party rejects: the introduction of the national curriculum, the introduction of the Office for Standards in Education or the introduction of testing?

Mr. Willis: I shall answer the hon. Lady directly. As a head, I supported the introduction of the national curriculum until it arrived at the school—lorry load after lorry load of it. Indeed, it arrived on the same lorry that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is now using. My staff and I were constantly fed up with two-stage pay awards every year and the local authority—of which I was an elected member—having to spend all its time reducing its education budgets every year.
If the hon. Lady is talking about the abolition of school organisation committees and the so-called independent adjudicators and returning admission and appeals to democratically elected local authorities, I shall stand by and support her. However, I suspect that she does not seek that. If she wants to remove from schools the necessity to produce an absurd number of individual plans on subjects ranging from literacy to asset management, my party and I shall support her. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Ministers ask whether we want to get rid of asset management plans. The last thing that most small rural primary schools in North Yorkshire want is to look after asset management—they want somebody to do it for them. A two-class primary school has a lot on in looking after the curriculum and standards, so the amount of planning that goes on is an issue.
If the hon. Lady wants to put an end to the torrent of centrally driven initiatives, proposals and targets, we shall stand with her. We want them to be reduced. If she wants to reduce the amount of paper that comes out of the Department for Education and Employment by the equivalent of a rain forest a year, again we shall stand with her. Papers regularly come through the doors of school governors and one of their great cries during the recent Education and Employment Committee inquiry was for an end to that. If the hon. Lady wants to campaign with the Liberal Democrats for the removal of tuition fees from our students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, again we shall stand with her. But no: the revolution that the Tories have in mind is a free-for-all that could produce 23,525 separate admission authorities, 23,525 separate appeals bodies and 23,525 schools that could spend more time dealing with legal disputes than with the curriculum.
The Tory party wants to support heads. It wants to support teachers, so that they can raise standards. However, it wants to give parents the power to call ballots


to sack head teachers, and then, presumably, to fund the expensive legal battles that will follow from school budgets. It says that parents should call for more inspections by the Office of Standards in Education when standard assessment test results dip. In last year's Ofsted report, 8 per cent. of schools were said to have serious weaknesses, and the average cost of an inspection is £13,000. If every one of those schools asked for an extra inspection, another £25 million would be needed. Is that how parents want their resources to be spent? Is that the "common-sense approach" to the reduction of bureaucracy?
The Tories also want to establish "free schools". The idea has been copied from the charter school movement in the United States, but has been taken one step further, because a Conservative Government would fund the buildings as well as revenue costs. It is a doubtful message: if schools are freed from all state or local control, they will deliver a better education system for our children. There is no evidence whatever to back up that proposition, certainly not in the United States, where we have seen a ragbag of institutions, the so-called best controlled by private-sector companies.

Mrs. May: Free schools do not owe their origin to the charter school movement in the United States, and we do indeed have examples of the way in which schools can improve education when they are given their freedom. We see that in the grant-maintained schools, which use money previously spent by local authorities on bureaucracy to increase the number of teachers, and to do various other things that greatly improve the quality of education.

Mr. Willis: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has dissociated herself from some of her Back Benchers, who claimed that they had brought back this solution for Tory thinking from America, and were proud of having done so. I talked to one who extolled the virtues of the marvellous so-called free schools, controlled by private companies such as Edison and Advantage. With those providers, schools must take the curriculum they are given, the methodology they are given and the materials they are given. Is that really what we want for parents and teachers in the future?
Let me ask the hon. Lady this. What happens to the special-needs child in the free school movement? What happens to the advantages that we have secured over the past 10 years in terms of inclusive education? How will such children fit into a free school that has its own admissions policy? Can it refuse a child with severe learning difficulties, or educational and behavioural difficulties? A child with cerebral palsy or sensory impairment will have no right of access to free schools.
What about the disruptive child? Will another free school be obliged to take him? Will the only provision be made in the "headway centres"—or pupil referral units, which is what they actually are? Given that those are grossly underfunded at present, what will happen when students are excluded from schools, perhaps permanently? I can tell the hon. Lady that in parts of London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham there could be more students in her headway centres than in mainstream schools, if heads were allowed simply to turf them out. However, parents, governors and teachers should not worry: the likelihood of a Conservative Government being elected with such nonsensical policies is pretty remote.
That is not to say that many of the hon. Lady's criticisms of the Government are not justified. The Liberal Democrats share her concerns about the smoke and mirrors over finance. I, too, visit schools where I am asked, "Where is the £19 billion that is being spent on education? Where do I see it in my budget?" I worked in a local authority that passported every penny of the £12.9 million for education last year and increased council tax by 9.6 per cent., but still cut school budgets by nearly 1.5 per cent.
We are concerned about the increasing centralisation of the curriculum and teaching methodology. Of course the literacy hour initiative was needed in many of our schools, but it certainly was not needed in every school. Teachers wanted the flexibility that would enable them to do things as they wanted to do them, in accordance with the needs of children.
We are concerned, too, about the creeping privatisation of the education system—the Government's belief that the private sector can always do things better. The events at Rams episcopal school in Hackney demonstrated that there are no sure-fire solutions. It was interesting to note that, after Islington council had been forced to hand over the running of its local education authority to Cambridge Education Associates Ltd, the first thing that it did was to recruit a chief education officer from Richmond upon Thames to lead its team—an example of the fact that, in the public sector, we still have some fine officers and leaders.
In the time that is left—I understand that we are on a tight schedule—I want to highlight our concerns about the most important issue facing the school system: the promotion of a highly qualified, well-motivated and well-paid teaching profession. It will not be the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidenhead or I who will improve standards in schools, but our teachers and heads. The Liberal Democrats continue to have concerns about the Government's proposals on performance-related pay. We continue to believe that they are divisive, fail to address the key issues that face the profession and will ultimately fail both to motivate and to retain staff. Above all, they will do precious little to persuade the best potential teachers to join the profession.
My main criticism is not about the principle of PRP. Clearly, it works in other sectors, but it will not achieve the desired outcomes for the profession, schools or the Government. Where is the evidence that it is possible to accredit an individual child's performance to an individual teacher, other than in the most simplistic way? No evidence was presented in the Green Paper. None has been presented since.
Teaching is a team activity. Who is to say that the influence of a sports teacher or music department on a child's motivation is more or less important than what the child sees in classrooms elsewhere? How do we assess the effects of early-years experience; access to private tuition; the number of children in a class with special needs; children with English as a second language; the size of the teaching group; and the work of other members of staff? The list is endless.
The Government have obviously been listening to some of the arguments—the dropping of reference to
progress towards national levels of achievement
is welcome—but they have failed to understand the complexity of assessing who is responsible for a child's performance.
The rest of the proposals are fraught with inconsistencies. If PRP is there to motivate staff and to raise standards, why is it voluntary? Why is not applied to all colleagues already at point 9 on the scale?
Those teachers already working well are being told that they must work harder to receive and to retain a threshold payment, but what of the others? Are those who do not put themselves forward to be judged as "ineffective" teachers and perhaps lazy? Will parents be informed of their status? Will women, who form the bulk of teachers, particularly at primary level, be discriminated against because they do not want to take on the increased burdens of additional activity?
Of course there is merit in rewarding our best teachers, but surely the challenge is to encourage teachers to work better, not simply harder, for more pay. Access to quality professional development as a statutory right would make a huge statement about valuing our teachers, yet the Government have ignored that option. Statutory access to non-contact time to prepare materials and to mark work would do much to raise the quality of teaching and morale, particularly in primary schools.
A fundamental principle of any PRP scheme is additionality. I was pleased when, on Thursday last, the Secretary of State appeared to commit the Government to continuing ring-fencing of resources to meet the costs of PRP after the initial two years. May I press the Government on that commitment? Will the Minister make it clear that, after the initial two years, the Government will continue to guarantee threshold payments and to ring-fence resources directly from the DFEE? Can she say how that mechanism will work?
Will future performance-related payments in the upper range or on the management scale be ring-fenced with additional money? Without such a guarantee, the scheme is bound to fail. If the Government intend to ask schools to incorporate any PRP payments from initial budgets after two years, we shall be back to the situation that I faced as a head teacher, when I had the option to give promotion points and excellence points, but no money to do so.
Will the Minister also clarify the position of those who become advanced skills or fast track teachers? As I understand the guidance, they will have to give up many of their present conditions of service, including the limit of 1,268 hours of directed time. If so directed, they will have to be available to undertake breakfast clubs or after-school clubs. If that is the case, there will be a large price to pay for going through the threshold.
There is an absurd timetable for the implementation of the scheme, with insufficient time to train heads and allow them to carry out assessments appropriately for September 2000. The reduction in the number of criteria from 16 to eight may superficially appear to simplify matters, but it has resulted in a massive expansion of guidance notes for heads, opening the floodgates for a tidal wave of bureaucracy. Few teachers will have the documentation available. That may well create huge tensions between them and the head.
I make an earnest plea to the Secretary of State to think again about the timetable. If a performance-related pay scheme is to be introduced, all the questions that are being asked must be properly answered and there must be a proper time scale—otherwise, it will fail.
Last year, the Government proudly announced that their teacher recruitment targets were being met. One of the fundamental issues for the PRP scheme and the Green Paper was to address the fact that so few quality people were choosing to come into teaching. The Secretary of State announced in December that maths teacher training was up by 16 per cent., but the Government made little noise about the fact that they had missed their recruitment target by 23 per cent. They made even less noise about the fact that most children at key stage 3 are not taught by a maths specialist. There are few press releases about the fact that in 1999 only history and PE reached their recruitment targets. This month, applications for maths teaching were 19 per cent. below last year's figure. Science and English are also down by 19 per cent. When I visited Imperial college recently, none of the third year undergraduates whom I talked to wanted to come into teaching, because they could get a starting salary at least £10,000 better elsewhere. We have to address the fact that we are in a competitive marketplace for teachers. If we want to ensure that we recruit the best, it is not good enough just to give teachers £2,000 extra at point 9 on the salary scale—we have to raise the starting salary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even within the restriction of 10 minutes for speeches—of which I remind the House—it will be difficult to fit in every right hon. and hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye. I appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I realise that I have been in the House for a long time. When I was a university teacher—when I worked for a living—I used to lecture about the great value of Opposition days, which are at the centre of our parliamentary democracy. As I listened to the opening speech from the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), I wondered whether anyone outside who believed in parliamentary democracy, let alone education, would value this debate very highly.
The opening speech could have set us off on the right footing. It could have been creative and full of insight. Fortunately, we are bringing about changes to the procedures of the House, with pre-legislative inquiries and the on-going work of Select Committees. That allows us to talk more constructively about education across the House.
I want to go through a quick checklist of how well the Government are meeting their obligations under the manifesto and the mandate to prioritise education. I want to give marks out of 10, some good and some bad. The hon. Member for Maidenhead was a very constructive member of the Education and Employment Committee and knows something about the subject, so it is surprising that she could not bring herself in this debate to talk about what we have in common.
The Government have adopted an approach that one would have thought would be dear to the heart of the Conservative party. They used good business methods, recognising that we must organise education in a more businesslike way, with achievable targets towards which all the stakeholders in the business can work together. That is fundamental tomorrow's company stuff about which anyone who has worked in the private sector knows.
Some of the successes came because the Government threw away some things that our party used—more in rhetoric than reality—to believe in, and took a realistic stance, looking at the problems pragmatically and solving them with any best technique that was available. I would have expected a little more frankness and honesty from the Opposition on that.
There is a problem. The Government came to power desperate to make changes. There was a huge backlog of neglect, stretching back well beyond the previous 18 years. We all used to accept that education was essentially for the elite. The Conservative party was more comfortable with that than us, but we all accepted that only a few people would be educated to a high level and that many would be looked after until they were 14—or subsequently 15 and 16—and would then get a job.
I remember cycling to school past factories displaying notices stating, "Hands Wanted". They wanted hands, not brains. That is a thing of the past. We cannot have an educational elite, be it 3, 5 or 30 per cent. of the population. All our work force and all our people must be encouraged to attain the highest levels of education and skill. I think that the Opposition accept that fact, too, although very reluctantly.
It is not surprising that an incoming Labour Government rushed at the target. Of course they did not get everything right—what Government do?—but some of the measures have been highly successful. Let us consider the Ofsted report. The figures were mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We have had great success in helping pupils in the early years and through to 11. That positive result means that we can consider more seriously what is happening for those from 11 to 14. There are serious deficiencies in that area. The transition to secondary school has proved difficult for some.
The difficulties are not only in problematic schools. I get sick of the terminology. We can call them failing schools, more difficult schools or challenged schools—we know which ones we are talking about. One problem is that the Government devise a strategy to do something about the most challenged schools and are not too clear that it might not be the right management strategy for what we call coasting schools—the 40 per cent. that are not getting worse or better in a hurry but need to be encouraged to achieve higher standards. That is the problem in the 11 to 14 sector.
In the difficult 14-plus sector, the Government's joined-up thinking has come later. It has taken time. Hon. Members know my old hobby horse about having too much of an academic education and constantly making those without the obvious academic abilities feel like second-class citizens. They do not get the high grades and the illustrious results and are made to feel failures throughout their education. Tackling that, especially at 14-plus, is something to which the Government have begun to set their hand. It will take time, but it is important that the Government do better. The match of skills and education is important, because they go together and should be considered together.
All of us who care about education are worried that too much emphasis is placed on driving basic standards up—increasing literacy and numeracy—while flair, creativity and imagination can fly out of the window. We must get the balance right.
I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough because I believe that performance-related pay, if introduced in the right way, must be right. Performance-related pay works in every other aspect of human endeavour that I know of, so why should teachers be different? I would also like to see performance-related pay—and better pay—in higher education, because if we are to maintain world-class standards in world-class institutions that compete globally, we have to do something radical quickly, before our higher education system is endangered.
Of all the aspects of education I have mentioned, I am most worried about higher education. We have not yet reflected and asked what will be the effects of too much standardisation and too much reliance on the state. We do not allow for diversity and creativity in higher education. They are most important if we are to provide the high-quality intellectuals on whom the nation depends.
I have a wish list. We must be cautious about the sort of pragmatism that always seems to lead to the private sector being invited in. Yes, the private sector can do a good job, but the expertise in the private sector is thinly spread and there are few firms around. Why cannot we build on the idea of the public sector producing superb administrators who are also managers who know education at a fundamental level? We could have a corps—a concept familiar in France and some other countries—from the public sector, with a good managerial ethos, to do the job.
We must ensure that we develop a methodology for breaking into the culture of low expectations in education. What strikes me from all the literature that I have read since becoming Chairman of the Education and Employment Committee is the lack of success with parents and how few parents we get through to and engage. I hate it when people say, "Well, parents do not turn up to the annual meeting." We have to have a strategy that engages parents and the home situation if we are to build on some of the fine work that we have done in early-years education. I have tried to bring some balance to the debate. There are some ticks and some crosses and some must-do-betters on the Government's record, but that is true of any Government.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The central charge against the Secretary of State is simple. For three years, we have had relentless activism. He has abolished grant-maintained schools, he has introduced measures that threaten the future of grammar schools, he has reasserted the comprehensive theory and he has abolished the assisted places scheme. He has done a whole host of things, but the one thing that he has not done is reform the one aspect of the administration and structure of our school system that cries out for reform. That is the system of funding individual schools in such a way as to give sufficient freedom to the heads and the teachers to meet the needs of the local communities the schools are there to serve.
Our funding system for individual schools is hopelessly opaque and is, in many cases, entirely perverse in its consequences. It allows Ministers to make decisions for whose effect they do not have to accept responsibility because the machinery is so complex that they understand it no more than do teachers or parents.
I am pleased to say that the chief inspector of schools made it clear in this year's annual report that he largely agreed with that analysis. He wrote:
We do not, as yet, have a transparent and educationally defensible mechanism for the equitable devolution of resources from central government to LEAs and from LEAs to schools. We should.
I wholeheartedly agree. First, it is essential to the delivery of high-quality education that we understand where responsibility lies in the system. Secondly, and more broadly, in a democracy it is fundamental that people should know what is done in their name with their money, and why. The problem with the present system is that Ministers never come to the Dispatch Box and defend, at the level of individual institutions, the decisions that they make.
Earlier, the Secretary of State noted that the present SSA funding system was the creation of the previous Government. That is true, historically, although it is also true that the SSA system is a close cousin of the system of rate support grants that preceded it. The present system grew up under Governments of both major parties over many years. We shall not make progress on this fundamental matter by seeking to score party political points. I want Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and accept responsibility for introducing a fundamental reform of a system whose time has long since passed.
I shall illustrate my argument from the local perspective of a Leicestershire Member of Parliament. People in Leicestershire do not need to understand the elaborate algebra of the formula to understand the stark consequences of that formula in their county. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the Government's SSA recommendations for Leicestershire county council. I invite my constituents—and the House—to compare what would happen in Leicestershire if those recommendations were adopted, with the circumstances of the not dissimilar authority of East Sussex.
I do not doubt that East Sussex faces its own problems with funding for schools, but it enjoys relatively more generous SSAs than Leicestershire. The last time that I visited East Sussex, it did not feel like a county in immediate need of regional assistance, but the computers tell us that the Government believe that education there should cost £270 per pupil per annum more than in Leicestershire. I do not understand that disparity, and I do not expect my constituents to.
However, the comparison with Lambeth is even more stark. I accept that deprived inner-city areas face extra costs in delivering essential social services, but I do not accept that there is anything inherent in the state of Lambeth that means that education provision should cost 75 per cent.—or nearly £2,000—more per pupil there each year than in Leicestershire. I accept the principle that education may cost more in Lambeth, but I certainly do not accept the result that the formula currently determines.
I made it clear earlier that this problem cannot be resolved merely by tweaking the system. We need something that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) touched on when he intervened on the Secretary of State. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I agreed with almost none of it. Indeed, I fundamentally disagreed with the vast majority

of what he said—but then, he and I have argued about these matters in Standing Committee for more hours than either of us would have chosen.
However, the hon. Gentleman said that the formula should relate the funding of individual schools to the number of their pupils and to their specific needs. He added that such a formula should be clear, accountable and comprehensible, and I warmly agree with him on both points. However, that proposition was fundamentally at variance with the larger case that he made in his speech, in which he argued for detailed LEA control of how individual schools go about their purposes. From the proposition that resources should flow to schools in a clear and accountable fashion it follows naturally that head teachers, staff and governors should be encouraged to be responsible for the use of resources once they reach a school.
I warmly agree with the ideas advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead for free schools financed by a formula that is clear and accountable. That would give head teachers and governors the confidence that their institutions would be fairly funded. It would also assure parents that their voices mattered in the running of schools. Most important, it would give pupils confidence that the professionals in the education world had the freedom to use resources to meet the needs of pupils in the best way possible.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate, as education is the most important issue in my constituency. I shall begin by saying how delighted everyone in my area was when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State overturned the plan of the Tory county council to close Coleridge community college. That very important secondary school has high standards of educational achievement. It is the only city secondary school to win a mark of approval as most improved school. Its closure would have left one of the most deprived parts of my constituency without a school and without a thriving community centre.
Last Friday, I visited St. Philip's community primary school in Cambridge. I was delighted at the progress that had been made since my visit last year. The 1997 Ofsted report said that St. Philip's was a successful and improving school working in a challenging area of high social need. It is important to understand that, as many people assume that any school in Cambridge is very middle class and in a leafy suburb. There are many schools in my constituency of which that is not true, and it is certainly not true of St. Philip's. Of its pupils, 43 per cent. are entitled to free school meals, 10 per cent. do not have English as their first language, and 21 per cent. are from ethnic minority backgrounds and speak two languages.
On both my visits to the school I was greeted by polite, well-behaved children determined to be helpful. They displayed enthusiasm for, and pride in, their school. The head teacher, Jill Pauling, showed me the building programme made possible by the additional money to reduce infant class sizes. The percentage of infant class children in Cambridge being taught in classes of 30 or more has fallen from 37 per cent. when this Government came into office to 7 per cent. now. That is thanks to the money made available by the Government.
I saw small groups of under-achievers being given tuition, with money from the standards fund, to bring them up to a higher standard. Children told me that they enjoyed the literacy strategy and the numeracy strategy. I was amazed that they understood those words, but they used them with confidence. One boy told me about his achievement levels in the different subject areas.
I also saw an adult literacy class going on in daytime school hours. One young mum, who had two children at the school, told me how she was taking GCSE English and enjoying it as she had never enjoyed learning when she was at school. These are remarkable achievements in a school in a deprived part of the city that does not have the advantage of many well-off, better-educated parents. I take this opportunity publicly to congratulate the head teacher on the excellence that she has created.
Most of the unhappiness in Cambridge centres on the funding formula. Neighbouring local education authorities in Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have much more generous allocations than Cambridgeshire. For primary schools, the standard spending assessment per pupil for the year 2000–01 is £77 more in Bedfordshire, £128 more in Essex and £161 more in Hertfordshire. For secondary school pupils, the corresponding differences are £117, £182 and £206. It is important to place those figures on the record, because the Liberal Democrats in my constituency are very fond of sending out newsletters and leaflets which exaggerate those figures grossly. They are quite large, but the figures issued by the Liberal Democrats bear no relation to reality.
If these differences are reflected in school budgets, a secondary school with 1,000 pupils in Hertfordshire will have £200,000 a year more to spend than a similar school in Cambridgeshire. That will mean six or seven more teachers and more money for books and equipment. Those differences are very hard to explain to parents.
I am interested in the barrage of complaints from Tory Members. They have the cheek to complain about a funding formula which they put in place and which they totally failed to reform in the following seven years of their term of office. Every year since I was elected in 1992, I have been to see the Minister responsible for local government about the reform of the area cost adjustment. I started with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in 1992, through to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 1996. Every year I was told that it was being reviewed, but those reviews never led to reform.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: I am sorry, but I have limited time and, tempted as I am, I am not prepared to give way.
Now that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is in charge of the process, I am confident, from my many conversations with her on the subject, that the review will lead to proposals that can be agreed. May I stress to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is essential that when the review is completed, they should make it clear that it must be acted on? We simply cannot afford to dash expectations which were dashed so many times by the previous Government.
In the past few months, I have asked many parliamentary questions to determine Cambridgeshire's position in the funding league. I have discovered that

Cambridgeshire schools have seen increases in the SSA per pupil in real terms since the Government came to power. According to a parliamentary question answered on 20 December 1999 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, the SSA per pupil in Cambridgeshire was £2,578 in 1992–93. Throughout the remaining Tory years, it plunged year on year to a low of £2,464—£114 lower than at the beginning of the Tory Government. That was the figure that this Government inherited in 1997–98. Since then, there has been a steady increase, and the figure will be £2,591 per pupil. That is higher than it ever was in the Tory years.
Yet Tory Members of Parliament and county councillors continue to criticise, and to blame the Government for their own ineptitude. What has changed is the amount of cash by which Cambridgeshire county council tops up the SSA for education. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that Cambridgeshire spends more than its SSA. Yes, it does—it is spending around £4.8 million more than its SSA this year. However, in 1995–96, when Cambridgeshire was controlled by a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration, and we had a Tory Government, the top-up was £15 million—a great deal more. We have lost £10 million in that period.
This is the first year that the Tory county council has passed on the full increase in education SSA to the education budget, so schools in Cambridgeshire should see their financial situation eased somewhat in the coming year.
We have heard a great deal in the past few months about how the Tories intend to reduce the share of national income taken in tax. We have heard nothing from them about how they intend to continue increasing education spending in line with our increases. Given that the previous shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), described our spending plans as reckless, mad and a mistake, do we take it that the current shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), shares that view? If the Tories were ever returned to power, would we see a steep drop in the real-terms funding of schools such as we saw in 1992 to 1997, which resulted in a 4.5 per cent. drop in Cambridgeshire? Parents need to know the answers to those questions, which are vital to our children's future.
Finally, no one so far has mentioned the vital issue of further education. Last Friday, I visited the Cambridge regional college, a medium-to-large further education collection in my constituency, which achieves very high standards. Like the two sixth-form colleges in Cambridge, the college has a number of Oxbridge entries each year, but it also provides a wide range of vocational as well as academic courses. The college principal, Ann Limb, told me how much they were looking forward to the vocational A-levels. She warmly welcomes the reforms to further education and training that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
There is a great deal to celebrate; I know that there is also a great deal to be done. I think that we have made a huge amount of progress, and I look forward to seeing more improvements in future.

Mr. David Curry: The epic journey of hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) through the area cost adjustment suffered a somewhat


truncated conclusion. I seem to recall the Labour party in opposition saying that it would solve it in its first year of office, then in its second year, and now it has been frozen to the whole of the Government's term. I hope that the hon. Lady will continue to address her concerns, this time to a place where there is the ability to answer them, although of course Ministers no longer receive delegations on any local government matter. They are hiding behind the iceberg. As I have said, the area cost adjustment is like the north-west passage—at the end of the day, it does not exist. I shall look forward to seeing how the Government try to get out of it.
I may be unique in this debate, as I do not intend to speak about finance. I hope that the House does not believe that all education problems boil down to finance. It is true that some problems can be made easier if we throw money at them. However, money is irrelevant to the problem in my constituency. I refer to the ballot that is taking place on the future of the two secondary schools. I insist that it is about the two secondary schools in my constituency, not just about the grammar school.
I do not want to talk about the substance of the issue, which must be decided by the people who are entitled to vote in Ripon—far too few of them, as a matter of fact—but I do want to talk about the mechanics. If the Government had wanted to invite parents to decide on the future of grammar schools, they should have required every local education authority in which selective schools exist to draw up a plan of reorganisation. They should then have submitted that plan of reorganisation to a ballot of parents so that they could choose between clear alternatives. The Government have succeeded, remarkably, in making everyone feel cheated. Those who wish to save the grammar school believe that the ballot is rigged against them. Those who wish to get rid of the grammar school also believe that the ballot is rigged against them. It is not hard to see why.
To cap it all, the issue is very divisive in a small town. I realise that there may be ballots to follow in whole education authority areas, in places such as Kent, Surrey or Buckinghamshire. But in Ripon, which is a small town of 15,000 people, and its immediate hinterland, a ballot that is open for five weeks is divisive to the point where it is almost impossible to speak of it in conversation without being marched to the frontier and expelled. Unfortunately, one would be expelled into the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), a fate that most people wish to avoid at almost any cost.
The mechanics of the matter make it obscure. The choice is not clear. When the ballot was introduced, people assumed that the question would be whether the grammar school, which is on one side of Clotherholme road, and Ripon college, which is on the other, would become a single comprehensive. That, however, is not what the debate is about. North Yorkshire county council, to whose impartiality and fairness I pay tribute, issued a question and answer paper to parents. It asked whether, if the vote was yes—that is, to end selection at the grammar school—that would result in a single comprehensive, and it answered its own question by saying, "Not necessarily."
The council also said that the purpose of the ballot was to alter admission arrangements at the grammar school. Would that mean that parents who wanted their children

to go to the reorganised grammar school would be able to do so? The council again said, "Not necessarily." It is small wonder that people feel that they are being asked to choose between the known and the unknown. There is no clear choice.
I suppose that I should be pleased about that because, as I have made clear in the constituency, I believe that people should vote against reorganisation. I should be happier, however, if I felt that the choice was clear and the electorate more representative. There are anomalies in the ballot. The choice is limited to 15 feeder schools—those that sent five people to the grammar school over the previous three years. Which schools fall into or out of that category is almost accidental. Had the ballot been held earlier, parents at Borobridge primary school, from which a tiny number of pupils go to the grammar school, would have been included, although most parents send their children to Borobridge high school, an extremely good comprehensive whose strong sixth form I helped to obtain when the school was in my constituency. Most of those parents have no interest, other than neighbourly feeling, in what happens in Ripon, but they would have been enfranchised.
A further anomaly is that two of the schools in Ripon have infant schools that are constitutionally separate from the junior schools to which they belong. In practice, the distinction is tiny, but parents with children at Holy Trinity and Moorside infant schools do not have a vote. If their children were at the infant schools attached to the Cathedral school, they would have a vote. Once again, the electorate is nominated under entirely perverse arrangements. Three independent schools are able to vote. Under the system chosen by the Government, it is logical that they should be able to vote, because they meet the criteria. However, at least some of the parents will have not the faintest interest in education in Ripon.
The worst thing of all is that anyone with a child in the final year of a feeder primary school can vote on the future of the two secondary schools. However, anyone with a child in the first year of either of the secondary schools—a child with up to seven years of education ahead—is not entitled to vote. I want parents of children at both secondary schools to have a vote. I do not want to confine it to those at the grammar school; that would be unfair. All parents should have the opportunity.
If the vote is for change, it is definitive. However, if the vote goes against change, there could be another in five years' time. I am not sure that head teachers should have to survive the same uncertainty as politicians, looking constantly towards the possibility of challenge. If the vote is for change, we will all work to make the best we can of it. We shall certainly try to ensure that the technology college status achieved by Ripon college, with which everyone is delighted—I am grateful to the Minister for School Standards, who was highly supportive and who understands the importance of that status to Ripon—will carry over to the new school. However, if the no vote wins, we will focus on the college's progress so that it can become a school proud of offering a distinctive and first-rate education. The colossal progress that it has maintained under its head teacher, Paul Lowery, should be continued.
Matters remain to be checked. In the selection system, the appeals procedure in North Yorkshire is not impeccable, and it should be revised. We should revise constantly to ensure that the constellation of schools in the


area offers the best possible education. We are focusing increasingly on what goes on inside schools and on the quality of education internally generated rather than externally imposed by a Government apparently determined to Bonapartise education with Napoleonic prescriptions. The Government must decide whether they truly believe in internal dynamism arising from the quality of the head teacher and staff, which will generate an ability to improve performance and competitiveness in a school.
There is a choice to be made, but the Government are trying to take both options, leaving schools confused. I hope that the issue will be resolved in Ripon, and that lessons will be drawn elsewhere. I hope that we may have an opportunity to develop a partnership of schools of equal but different excellence. The Government must reflect on the sheer perversity of the arrangements in place. They must see why so many parents think that the system is perverse in its mechanics but definitive in its outcome. If the wrong choice is made this time, there is no going back. If a different choice is made, uncertainty may continue ad infinitum, and that would be wrong.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: A clear pattern is developing in Opposition motions. We might call it the Rip van Winkle theory of politics, which allows the Opposition to pretend to have been asleep for 20 years and, having awoken, to see only education today, and not the system that the previous Government left behind. I am disinclined to let them get away with that. We should remember where we came from on education policy. In primary and secondary education, we inherited: underfunding; sterile competition between schools; inequities between grant-maintained schools and others; falling standards in basic subjects; and assisted and overfunded pet minority projects, such as the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges.
In further education, we inherited: continued cuts; large and impossible efficiency targets; lack of supervision in many cases; and falling standards. In higher education, there was a sense of drift compounded only by what one commentator called the fit of absent-mindedness with which the Conservative Government expanded HE while doing nothing to fund it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fact that, between 1989 and 1997, investment in HE was cut by 36 per cent.
Teachers were battered and demoralised by a continuous stream of denigration and competing instructions throughout that period. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) stood before us earlier arrayed in scarlet—appropriate dress for one whose speech about teachers was the biggest masquerade since the wolf put on a cloak and pretended to be Red Riding Hood's granny.
I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that there was no point in Britannia's ruling the waves if we could not flush the drains. Today, after nearly three years of Labour Government, 95 per cent. of our secondary schools and 60 per cent. of primary schools are on the internet. The Tories left many schools with a top priority of removing asbestos and outside loos, about which their Government did absolutely nothing.
When we talk of excellence in education, we talk of raising standards, but we also mean widening access and social inclusion. I venture to suggest that we have got the basics right on standards. The literacy figures for 1999,

which are up by 5 per cent. for 11-year-olds, the figures for mathematics, which are up by 10 per cent., and the GCSE improvements are testimony to that.
It is not just a question of quantity; we also need to achieve quality. The Government have introduced the new General Teaching Council. Recently, my colleagues on the Select Committee and I interviewed Lord Puttnam and were enormously impressed by such an inspiring and thoughtful choice. We have set up the national college for school leadership. Our targets for primary and nursery teachers have been raised significantly.
We said that we would make improvements in quality and we have done so through the education action zones. We have taken firm steps through the excellence in cities programme. Our A-level reforms will enable us to meet the vocational needs and the demands of globalisation that were neglected by the previous Conservative Government. We have allocated £5.5 billion to school repairs—the bread and butter matters. None of those points was addressed by the previous Government.
Let us talk about access. There is a new educational maintenance allowance. There are new proposals for the post-16 sector. We have made the most generous settlement for years in further education. My right hon. Friend has just announced that there will be £68 million of extra help for mature students. That is a valuable part of our programme.
We are taking each segment that was systematically neglected by the Conservatives and dealing with it—special educational needs; education for people with disabilities; the new deal for single mothers. The new learning and skills councils and our focus on universities will give a strength of direction that was sorely lacking under the previous Government.
The Labour Government pursue a joined-up education policy. That is why we introduced sure start, the early-years partnerships and the connections initiative—a holistic strategy for a proper youth service. We are looking at individuals and not only at output numbers—as the previous Government would have done. The results of our mentoring programmes and the initiatives to cut truancy and social exclusion are increasingly becoming apparent.
We are setting exacting targets, which are being met. Only 10 days ago, it was noted in an OECD report that:
The UK was the only country to come out well on all ten recommendations from a joint report by employers' organisations across seven European countries.
I am not making these points merely because I have seen them at macro-level. In my constituency, I have seen the success of the summer schools and the family learning centres that the education authority has set up with money from the standards fund. I observed the significant reductions in class sizes, and the good response to our sure start project on the Mereside estate. I have seen how the Government and Ofsted—in response to feelers put out by the Select Committee—are tackling mobility. I have seen Blackpool and Fylde further education college and Woodlands special school receive commendation and beacon status from the Government.
It is hardly surprising that there should be a difference in the performances of Labour and Conservative Governments. It results from the philosophical divide on education that has always existed between the left and the right. For us, the issue is education for the many—


about collaboration and raising expectations. For the Conservatives, it has all too often been about education for the few. It is about cut-throat competition and a narrow hierarchical approach that puts people down—setting up a sheep and goats system, often ending in education paralysis. The Tories have too often been happiest with the mushroom theory in education—as they have in democracy. Parliamentary language forbids me to explore that theme further.
Labour Governments introduced the Open university and the university for industry. All too often, the Tories have abandoned the bipartisanship of the Education Act 1944. Our view of education threatens the deference, the prejudice and intolerance that have often characterised Conservative views and policies. I am not entirely surprised that some of their backwoodsmen are so comfortable in embracing the bigots' charter of section 28.
Even when the Tories take education on board, they treat it as narrow, repetitive training. They have not acknowledged it to be an empowering aspect of life, as we have done. In government, the Tories produced a stream of unlinked initiatives, which were underfunded on the basis that the market would solve all. In opposition, they demonstrate a sense of atavistic frustration and genuine bewilderment about where to go. A few weeks ago The Times Higher Educational Supplement reported:
Conservatives have cancelled a long-awaited announcement on higher education policy because it would have been 'premature'.
How, one wonders, can an announcement scheduled weeks ago for next Tuesday, suddenly be deemed premature? After all, the party has had close to three years, since the last election, to come up with a higher education policy.
Neither in theory nor in practice have we fallen for the false antitheses proposed by the Conservatives. The question is not between whether there should be excellence and access in education or education that provides economic utility. Education should do all three. In a globalised world, we need all three. Over the past three years, our Government have shown that our motto for the national health service—"From the cradle to the grave"—should also be applied to education and education strategy.
We have a far broader social purpose for education than could ever be dreamed of by the Conservatives. That is why we are allocating funding and working with teachers and parents. That is why we shall deliver a system of education that is second to none.

Mr. John Redwood: I have declared an interest in the register, which includes two modest, unpaid contributions to the world of higher education.
The Government say one thing and do another. We have seen that in so many fields. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has shown admirably how the Government have misled the British people over money for our schools—for our children's future and for our education. My hon. Friend and I know that well because the Wokingham local education authority, which covers parts of both our constituencies, is one of the worst affected. Over the past two and a half years, we have received the meanest of settlements from the Government. There is no relief in sight. Our schools

have been put under far too much pressure. There is not enough money for books, nor for all the teachers that they need. It is a disgrace and it is no wonder that we all feel let down.
However, I shall not concentrate on money—others have been extremely eloquent on that subject. Education matters enormously. It is the means through which children from less privileged backgrounds or from families with lower incomes can get on in the world. They can make progress and see that there is a much better world that can stretch their imaginations and, yes, it can even provide them with better jobs and fill their wallets and bank accounts.
I was one such child, who was grateful for the opportunity given to me by a free place to a direct grant school. It meant that I could attend a school that was well beyond the dreams of my parents—they could not have afforded that school place. I and many like me benefited from that and went on to university. Look what followed—I even got into the shadow Cabinet. Then I rode on the great roller-coaster of life in this place—as we saw two or three weeks ago. I would not want to take such an opportunity away from others who come from the same background as me. It can be good fun and good for the soul. I hope that the Government will think again about assisted places—the modern equivalent of the direct-grant free place from which I benefited.
Of course, a previous Labour Government destroyed those direct grant places. That meant that my school had to become fee paying only; it can now only take children whose parents can afford to pay. That is a shame. It is an even greater pity that many children who, only three or four years ago, could have taken advantage of our assisted places scheme find that it has been taken away from them.
If the Government needed more money for more teachers for other schools—there was a case for that—why not find the extra money? Why not save on the glossy brochures and the published lectures of the Secretary of State and allocate the money for extra teachers? Why not find the money from elsewhere—from the quangos and the regional governments that they are setting up? We should have preferred to see teachers in our schools.
It is also a sign of the times that there have been so many rows in the Labour party about a good school such as the London Oratory. I do not wish to go into the details of all the pupils who attend the school, but Labour Members know that there are children who benefit from such a school. Is it not a sad fact of life that now parents at the Oratory are being asked to make a monthly contribution to top up the school's cash because their Labour Government have cheated that school of the money? I believe that it, too, is a good school. It deserves the extra money. Why cannot the mean-minded Labour Government find that money, if for no other reason than to cover the embarrassment of some of the parents caught up in that educational problem?
I also have a word for my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. As she knows, I am a strong supporter of her idea of a free school. I believe that, through the free school, we can recapture some of the excellence of the direct grant school, and we can capture some of the excellence to which children had access as a result of the assisted place and some of the excellence that we were getting through the grant-maintained schools, which


have been so needlessly and recklessly thrown away, now that their money has been cut, too. However, I hope that, as my hon. Friend develops the policies, she will ensure that several things are part of the scheme.
First, we would not wish to end up nationalising the schools and giving the Department for Education and Employment too much power to fiddle with the schools, to intervene and to meddle too much or too often with the money formula. The schools must be given that independence and they must be able to use it in the certain knowledge that the money will come every year and that they will not have to perform good works or tricks, in the way that they have to for this Government, to qualify for the cash that they obviously need for their progress.
Secondly, we must guarantee that free schools are given every encouragement to expand when they are doing well. When I was responsible for education in Wales, I launched an initiative called popular schools, the idea of which was to offer the money, especially for new buildings, but also for the extra teachers and personnel that would be needed, so that, when a school was doing well and parents wanted to send their children to it, the money was available to add on the extra classroom or classrooms to provide the extra facilities so that more places could be provided. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that scheme, or a variant of it, and add it to her free schools, because I believe that it will be the magic ingredient that causes many more parents' dreams to come true.
One of the saddest times of year in my constituency, and probably in many others, is the time of year when parents are trying to get their children into the school of their choice but discover that there are not enough places at that school. No wonder parents want to choose, given the enormous scatter of performance even among schools serving a very similar catchment area. In my part of the world, a child who attends the worst-performing school has only a two in five chance of getting five A to C grades at GCSE, which is the bare minimum to allow them to go on to some other advantage in education; whereas a child who attends the best-performing comprehensive school—we have grammars that take some of the brightest pupils—has a four in five chance of getting those five A to C grades. The second child's chances are doubled. The school gets no more money than the school that performs badly. No wonder parents want to exercise their choice.
How sad it is that we cannot get enough money to expand the really good, popular school, so that more parents can have that advantage for their children. One should not have to enter a lottery based on postcode and address in order to get a good education for one's child. If the Government do not know how to sort out the badly performing schools, let us launch an expanded free school scheme that gives parents the hope that, under a Conservative Government, they would be able to choose and their choice would be translated into action.
It is most important that this Conservative Opposition show how much they care about education, how much many of us have benefited from it and why we want those benefits for others. We must expose the humbug of 13 members of the Labour Cabinet to date who attended grammar schools and now, by stealth, are trying to destroy those schools and take that choice away so that others cannot follow after them.
We must stand for excellence. We must stand for choice. We must stand for proper money for those schools. We must stand for parents having more control over their children's lives as pupils. That is what free schools can do. That is what the Government's failed education policies cannot possibly do. I plead with Ministers to change their minds before more children from modest backgrounds find that they cannot get the lucky break in life.

Liz Blackman: I confess that I have not read the education chapter of "The Common Sense Revolution" by the Conservative party, because I do not see the two as synonymous. I also confess that the Opposition's diatribe this afternoon about Government spending caught me by surprise, but it will cut no ice in my constituency, where we have smaller classes, new classrooms, mended roofs and a much better provision of education.
I was not at all surprised by—in fact, I entirely expected—the sterile arguments on selection, structure and status as means of raising educational standards. They are bygone arguments, they are bogus assertions and in 1997 the electorate voted against them.
All parents want the best for their children, and that includes the best education. They want results; they want standards to be raised. The Opposition motion is not about results, standards or achievement, but it jolly well should have been. I do not recall the Opposition using the words "standard" or "comprehensive" more than once or twice in the Chamber this afternoon. That is a disgrace, because it is what the education system should provide—the raising of standards for all our children.
I spent part of the weekend studying the reports by the chief inspector of schools and making some useful comparisons. I compared the report for 1996–97, which effectively was the last year when Tory education policies prevailed, and the most recent annual report available. The information is not surprising, but it is very pleasing. The quality of teaching has risen in a record number of schools since that time, across all key stages. There are fewer unsatisfactory schools and far more good schools and very good schools in that category.
Teachers have been judged on knowledge and understanding, pupil management, planning, use of time and resources, methods and organisation, expectations, homework and quality of assessment—the bread and butter of teachers—and standards have been driven up considerably since the last year of Tory government.
Information has been broken down into subject and progress across key stages. Very good or good progress is now being made across virtually every subject in a far higher percentage of schools.
I make no apology for returning to key stage results—notably key stage 2 results, where there has been a sharp rise in pupil achievement, especially in maths and English. The chief inspector of schools said:
In that the drive to raise standards depends above all else on raising standards in the basic skills, this is a very significant and promising development, which is directly linked to the National Literacy and Numeracy strategies.
Many schools started early on those strategies, and I give full praise to the teachers in my constituency and across the country who have achieved these spectacular


results. Chris Woodhead attributes the rise in quality of teaching in part to the literacy and numeracy strategies. He says that they are starting to influence other areas of the curriculum, such as science, where the percentage of those hitting level 4 at key stage 2 is up from 62 per cent. to a staggering 78 per cent.
Interestingly, there is little evidence of these strategies undermining standards in other subjects, but that stands to reason: a child who can read and write and is numerate can access other subjects. Most primary schools have a broad, balanced curriculum. I draw attention to both those facts because the Opposition continually allege that education will become unbalanced as a result of the strategies.
The number of schools serving disadvantaged areas and achieving good results has increased. Unsurprisingly, Chris Woodhead makes the point that illiterate and poorly literate children come predominantly from areas of disadvantage, but he adds that the literacy strategy is a real ray of hope in achieving an improvement in results:
The key lies in the Primary School. If the Literacy Strategy continues to deliver, we shall at least have a solution to a deeply intractable problem which has resisted every attempt in recent years to find more immediate remedies.
No wonder he calls the literacy and numeracy strategy value for money. When it is combined with targeted strategies in areas of disadvantage, excellence in cities, educational action zones—he says that they may have a profound effect—sure start and the new deal for communities, the cycle of under-achievement, especially in areas of social and economic disadvantage, should at last be broken.
I refer briefly to key stage 3 results, which a colleague mentioned earlier. Those results are slightly more erratic, but Chris Woodhead confirms the need to build better foundations in literacy and numeracy at primary level. Of course, the key stage 3 cohort has no exposure to the strategies that are now in place. In part, that probably explains the erratic nature of the results.
It cannot be said often enough that two fifths of 11-year-olds were not achieving level 4 when the Tories left office in 1997. Given Chris Woodhead's positive comments about the current strategy and the striking key stage 2 results, why was that strategy not adopted in the 18 years of the Tory Government? Why were so many children failed? Why were so many children unable to access the curriculum? Why were those children more likely to play truant—or allowed to? Why were so few of them unable to obtain GCSE passes, and why were so many of them unemployed or unemployable?
Although I spoke in the previous debate on education, I also tried to intervene then on the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I wanted to ask her whether she intended to mention the literacy and numeracy strategy. I was not able to intervene, but she did not mention it and she has not mentioned it today. That is significant. After 18 years of Tory rule, Conservative Members should apologise for the two fifths of children who went through school without learning the basic skills to enable them to make their way.
There was no excuse for not putting in place a national literacy and numeracy strategy. There is no hiding place and there is no answer other than that Conservative

Members failed to recognise the need for all to obtain and develop core skills. It is no good their hiding behind local education authorities; it is no good talking about trendy lefty reading methods. They were the Government for 18 years and they had a strategic responsibility to serve all our children. They failed miserably.
I refer now to the quality of teaching. Good education can be delivered only by good teaching methods. The vehicle is quality teaching, and that ensures quality learning. The trend unfortunately thus far has been for good teachers, who have the skills and the expertise to improve their children's learning, to move swiftly out of the classroom and into the management structure. That is how they raise their pay. It is therefore absolutely right to introduce performance-related pay. We have to attract, retain and reward good quality teachers, because only through their commitment and skill will standards continue to rise and our children continue to succeed.
The pay rise of 3.3 per cent. this year was much welcomed by the teaching profession. It is 1.5 per cent. above the rate of inflation. I have no problem with asking teachers to be assessed so as to go through the threshold to achieve, in the first instance, £2,000. We are not asking teachers to do more than what most of them who are good teachers are doing already. We are simply asking them to have their skills verified. Is it outrageous to ask them to submit to assessment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I call the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

Mr. Richard Ottaway: One of the interesting features of the debate is that anyone who has listened to it would get the impression from Labour Members that, until 1997, everything was a disaster and that, since 1997, everything has been wonderful.
The most telling point came when my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) intervened on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and asked which of the Conservative Government's policies he regretted had been introduced. My hon. Friend mentioned the national curriculum, standard assessment tests and Ofsted. It was revealing that, for all the hon. Gentleman's bluster, he did not oppose any of them. The same is probably true of every Labour Member. Although they opposed those fundamental reforms when they were introduced by the Conservative Government, not one of them has said that they oppose them now.
I wish to refer to a constituency case. I do not know who said that all politics is local, but a small illustration gives the feel of what is going on in the Government's attempts to implement their pledge to keep class sizes in infant and primary schools down to 30.
Woodcote infant school in my constituency is a feeder school for the local junior and high school. It is in a delightful location on the north downs, and it is important for its environment. It has a playground on the one side and a little grassy strip on which children can play on the other. Until September 1999, like most infant schools, it had three years—a reception year, a year 1 and a year 2. There were two classes for each year, making a total of six classes. Those six classes were housed in seven classrooms, one of which was used as a library and for group work.
The crime that Woodcote infant school committed was that each class had, on average, 33 or 34 pupils. I am glad that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is present, because he knows the school well. The important point is that each class had not just a teacher, but a classroom support assistant, so that there were two adults in every classroom. Its standards were impeccable. It had a 100 per cent. record in English, mathematics and science tests. That, in itself, demonstrates that class sizes are not a key determinant.
Since September 1999, as a result of the Government's endeavours to implement their election pledge to keep class sizes down to 30, everything has changed in the school. The reception year was obliged to take on an extra class, and it follows that in successive years there will be an extra class in years 1 and 2 as well. Three new classrooms are needed. Nothing has been received from the Government or the local council for year 1, and the staff have been obliged to put the extra class in the library. The school, therefore, has lost its library and storage facility.
That is okay for year 1, but back in September, the school still needed two more classrooms. Yet here we are at the end of February and outline plans have only just been submitted and those plans are inadequate. First, Croydon council has reneged on its pledge to replace the outside huts and to have proper classrooms; and of the three options available, it has, unsurprisingly, chosen the cheapest. However, that option is utterly inadequate, environmentally damaging and disruptive. It has been chosen because of a shortage of funds from the Department for Education and Employment and Croydon council's refusal to put a penny into implementing the Labour party's policies.
A classroom block will be built on the playground, and the grass strip that was used for sporting facilities will be turned into tarmac. That is the bare minimum of what must be done—it will create three rooms for three classrooms. There is no cover, so if it rains the children will get wet. There is no decent play area and no extra storage. The assembly hall, which can house the entire school at present, will not be able to accommodate all the extra children, and there will be no library.
Worst of all, the school's expansion means that there is no guarantee that there will be class support assistants in every classroom, so the Government's endeavours to implement their pledge mean that the school will go from having two adults in every class and a 100 per cent. record in exams, to a worse ratio of pupils to adults. Standards will be at risk, and my guess is that the 100 per cent. record will go.
As a result of a political pledge, the Government will be £400,000 worse off; the pleasant environment of the school will be ruined; and standards will be put at risk. At the same time, Croydon council, which has refused to indulge in proper forward planning or to put any money into the school, is spending £150,000 refurbishing the bureaucrats' offices in the town hall. This is not only a disaster for local schools: it is a scandal beyond belief.

Valerie Davey: After the theory and rhetoric of Conservative Members, I, like the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), would like to focus on local schools to demonstrate that life in the education world has certainly changed since 1997.
During the last year of Tory Government, £4.4 million went to subsidising private schools in Bristol every year. At the same time, the local authority was seeking to make cuts of £6 million. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seemed to want justice and fair funding for pupils at different schools. I can assure him that the assisted places scheme paid out two or three times as much per pupil as the local educational authority funding in the same city. That was certainly not fair or just.
The money went to the few, not the many, and our use of that money as the core of funding to ensure that every young person starts school in a smaller class is demonstrably fairer. Every child deserves a fair start, and in Bristol, numbers in early years classes are falling and the quality of education is therefore improving.
I assure the House that the two remaining grammar schools in Bristol will open as comprehensives this September. Why? It is because none of the parents, staff or governors at the schools objected to the change. The previous Secretary of State had turned down the proposal, but it is what the communities wanted, and I was therefore delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to sign those orders, and the two schools will go forward with a completely different character.
Cotham grammar school is to become Cotham school, with a special status for performing arts. To get that status, the school has collaborated with the feeder schools, the Old Vic theatre school, the BBC, and other secondary schools in the city, and all of them will benefit. The school will no longer be exclusive; it will be wide-ranging and collaborative. The other school, which is largely multicultural and very lively, is looking with other schools to form an education action zone in the centre of Bristol. That is a progressive development for those former grammar schools, and it is to the advantage of many more young people than simply those within the walls of the schools in question.
The literacy hour was pioneered by primary schools in Bristol, and as a result they have seen standards rise well above the national average. Other schools are now pioneering the numeracy hour, and we are beginning to see the same effect.
Sure start, with the early-years excellence centre, is also coming to Bristol. The city has a long tradition of early-years education, going back to the period after the war when the first nursery nurses college was set up in Bristol, and to have the new centre bringing together social services and education provision is particularly significant. That is happening in a deprived area, and the centre is a flagship for such work. We are seeking to bid for a second centre, with a great deal of encouragement from the Department for Education and Employment. Provision for the early-years work in Bristol was made by previous Labour-controlled authorities, despite the cut in funding, because they recognised its importance and value.
On the subject of LEA funding, Bristol is anticipating freezing the rise for the third year running, but all the funding given by the Government for education has been


spent on education. In the coming year, it looks as though we shall delegate to schools £174 per pupil more than the national average. That can be done, and it is being done by a Labour-controlled authority.
In Tory-controlled North Somerset, where there is to be a 4.5 per cent. council tax rise, there will be a significant cut in education funding, so that money will not be funded through to the schools. That causes concern, because the local authority has taken part in one of the education action zones and received extra funding for that. One must question whether it has taken funding from one hand of the Government and is refusing to spend money from the other.
Bristol's LEA is doing a good job, although there is much more to do. In further education, where the need of so many young people to have a second chance has been demonstrated, the City of Bristol college has set up a drop-in centre in the centre of the city. People can drop in from 7 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night to use various types of information technology. The centre caters for a range of people, from those who are picking up a mouse for the first time to those who want to use digital technology to do degree work or to use video conferencing linked with the university of the West of England. That resource is a fine example of what can be done through collaboration.
Before the end of the year, we hope that there will be new buildings for the college in the city centre, near the harbourside, the reference library, the new millennium science projects and the new millennium natural history centre. I assure the House that the college will be a centre of excellence not only for Bristol but for the surrounding area.
I must mention also the three universities that serve the community. All are beginning, perhaps a little more slowly than I would like, to consider the ways in which universities can, as they do in America, demonstrably support secondary education, not only so that more sixth formers will go to university, but so that youngsters of 13 and 14 get a flavour, through the summer schools that we have been pioneering, of what it would be like to go to university. University staff experience the excitement of eager 13 and 14-year-olds, whose imaginations they can capture. All that excellent work is under way.
There has been a transformation since 1997, but—I must add a "but"—we have still not yet achieved all that we would like to achieve at secondary level and in inner-city schools. We have taken positive steps, but all city schools have to be challenged and supported.
The IT provision that many schools now have is exciting, and we have done excellent work through special schools, such as the one in my constituency which I mentioned. However, I want there to be a special school for languages in Bristol, and I want to encourage primary schools to specialise. I have heard of primary schools in which bilingual children are encouraged to develop their special language skills. At that age, youngsters have a flair for language; rather than waiting to enter secondary school and reach the age of 14, 15 or 16 before taking on a second or a third language, they can benefit from the superb practice of some of our city primary schools. When some mentors came to one of my local schools to offer help with reading in English, I told them—fairly tactfully,

but fairly bluntly—that the children at the school could already read in English, Punjabi, Arabic and Swahili. We have an opportunity to encourage the work that such schools are doing and to make people see that children being bilingual at primary school should be celebrated, not regarded as a problem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but there is a 10-minute limit on speeches.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in such an excellent debate, kicked off so splendidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I do not have time to go through the 15 failures of the Government's education policy that she listed so eloquently, but I should like to comment on certain issues.
University students have been let down. The Government always promised that they would increase funding per capita, but they have instead cut it. To add insult to injury, not only are they reducing funding per capita for students, but they are taking £1,000 a year off students in the form of tuition fees. Students are paying more but getting less. That the Government are pocketing the tuition fee money and not guaranteeing that it will go directly to the university concerned is a great shame and it will damage the progress that universities should be making. The Government are considering the possibility of uncapping tuition fees, so people might have to pay £10,000 or £15,000 a year to attend a British university. If the Government do that, will they guarantee that that money will go to the universities at which the students study?
The House will be disappointed if I do not refer to the selective education system in the borough of Trafford, as it is affected by the current grammar school ballot. I see that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) looks forward to my remarks. Had he addressed this issue, I would have intervened to ask him to explain why his robust opposition to the grammar school system is not shared by Liberal Democrats in my constituency, who put a leaflet through my door saying that grammar schools are excellent schools that should be left alone to prosper, without interference from the Government's rigged ballot system that is threatening them all. Liberal Democrat policy can be one thing in one place, and another somewhere else, just as the Government say one thing and do another.
The record of the education system in Trafford is one of almost unparalleled success in a mixed local authority area, ranging from affluent communities to fairly poor ones. Through grammar schools, secondary schools and high schools, our education system delivers excellent opportunities and excellent results for children whatever their social background. That all that is threatened by the Government's actions is a great tragedy. I am pleased to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who spoke so cogently about the terrible assault that the Labour Government have launched on the opportunities of ordinary children who do not have money to pay for their education.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the quality of all of the schools in our areas, not only the grammar schools, is threatened.


I represent a constituency that has seven excellent grammar schools and excellent high schools. The Government have recognised one of those high schools as a beacon school and I hope that at least one of the others will follow suit before too long. The Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic school in my constituency has just had an outstanding Ofsted report. Our schools, both grammar and high schools, are delivering excellence in education. The record adjusted to take account of the number of children who receive free school meals and ranked by educational performance reveals that, last year, the borough of Trafford would have come seventh in national league tables for GCSE results. That is a creditable performance of which we should be proud. We regularly get the best A-level results in the country, but to do that well at GCSE and to deliver such results in respect of children from the less affluent parts of the borough does special credit to our system.
The petition is proceeding in Trafford and the anti-grammar school campaigners say that it is on course to deliver a ballot, but the whole process is rigged. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, the ballot was rigged by affecting the electorate. In my area, where the ballot is to be a whole-LEA ballot, the system is as rigged as was the Labour London mayoral ballot—

Mr. Curry: And no more successful.

Mr. Brady: Quite right. The Government do not appear to know how to offer people a genuinely free choice: rather than risk a decision that is openly taken, they stack the odds and rig the system.
To suggest in the ballot question on grammar schools that the effect would merely be to ensure that grammar schools are opened to admit all regardless of ability is nonsense, but there is a real danger that such a ruse will mislead parents. As if that were not enough, the ballot rules have been broken by Trinity Church of England high school in Hulme, which five months ago wrote to Trafford parents enclosing literature from the stop the 11-plus campaign. I complained four months ago about that clear breach of the ballot code, but it has taken until now for the Department to rule on the subject. In the Department's letter, the Secretary of State upholds the complaint, but takes no meaningful action; instead, he merely says that the school must write to the parents explaining why he has found that it did the wrong thing—not that the school must write setting out the opposing argument and thereby ensuring that the damage to the possibility of a fair and properly conducted ballot is undone.
Nothing in the Secretary of State's disciplinary action means that the false information given out will be balanced. Even though several parents have received campaigning literature that has been sent out at public expense and can be construed only as an attempt to influence the outcome of the ballot, the Secretary of State is "satisfied" that the school involved did not intend deliberately to breach the legislation, but is
persuaded that the intention behind the letter of 28 September was to pass on information, rather than to support a particular side of the argument.
I do not have time to read out the leaflet that was sent out, but it is definitely a piece of campaigning literature that no reasonable person could construe as an attempt

to inform; on the contrary, it is an attempt to influence the outcome of the ballot. Ministers accept that it was sent out at public expense, bearing the imprint of a state-supported school. It prevents a truly fair ballot proceeding in the borough of Trafford.
If that goes ahead, and if Ministers have their way and the excellent selective education system in Trafford is destroyed, they will have destroyed opportunities not just for the brightest in our community and those who come from the wealthiest parts of the borough, but for everyone, even from the poorest parts of the borough.

Mr. John Bercow: This has been a fine debate, characterised by some outstanding contributions, principally those from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, eloquently set the scene with a fearsome denunciation of the Government's failures in the past 33 months. She was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who highlighted the inequity of the existing funding system and the need for change.
Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a thoughtful and measured contribution, which will have commanded respect in all parts of the House, pointed to the success of existing provision in his part of the country and to the dangers of needlessly tinkering with that provision.
Not long afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) gave a characteristically sparkling speech and an analysis of the education scene that was a veritable tour de force. In the course of that oration, my right hon. Friend pointed to the wisdom of the free schools policy and offered helpful advice for its development. He also explained to the House the benefit that he had derived from his education.
My right hon. Friend is renowned throughout the length and breadth of the land for his natural charm, courtesy and self-effacement, which prevented him from telling the House of the benefit that the country had derived from the magnificent education that he enjoyed. I need no such self-denying ordinance.
Sadly, the dismal failure in the debate was the truly risible speech from the Secretary of State, who sat arrogantly sniggering, sniffing and laughing at anyone who dared to disagree with a smidgen of what he had said or what he was doing. He showed himself guilty of the most gut-wrenching complacency, which will have appalled teachers, head teachers, parents, governors and pupils across the country, who are conscious of the besetting woes of our education system.
The Government's record is appalling. It is a litany of promises broken, trust betrayed and hopes destroyed. We saw once again this afternoon that the Government are insensitive to public concern and that their approach is characterised by shiftiness, a lack of principle and a simple incapacity to engage in straight dealing with regard to education.
Let us consider public expenditure on education. When the Government were in opposition, the then Leader of the Opposition said that over the course of the Parliament, Labour would raise the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education. The simple, irrefutable fact is


that by the end of this Parliament, that share will have declined from 5 per cent. bequeathed by the Conservative Government to 4.7 per cent. under the present Government.
Not content with misrepresentation on that score, Ministers seem to delight in exaggerating the increased education expenditure that is planned. They have calculated it on exactly the same basis as the health service funding increases, which resulted in John Ford, an adviser to the British Medical Association, saying that the Government had calculated the figures in—I quote, for the delectation of my right hon. and hon. Friends—"an unconventional way". In short, they fiddled the figures. The promises are bogus; the delivery is meagre, if not non-existent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood pointed out the legitimate concerns that the chief inspector of schools has already expressed in his annual report about
the absence of a transparent and educationally defensible mechanism for the equitable devolution of resources from central Government to local education authorities and from LEAs to schools. Such a mechanism is required.
On class sizes, the Government's performance is pitiful. There has been a tiny reduction at key stage 1 at a cost of £620 million to the British taxpayer, but for other primary school pupils, for secondary school pupils and for nursery school pupils as well, the classes are bigger, bigger, bigger in every case—up, up, up, in lingo that is interpretable by Labour Members.
After 33 months of Labour government, there are 48,581 classes containing more than 31 pupils. There are 3,500 pupils more in classes of more than 36. The head of economics at the leading firm of City accountants, Chantrey Vellacott—

Mr. Coaker: Where?

Mr. Bercow: —has pointed to the fact that the proportion of pupils in classes above 30 has risen by 15 per cent. I am sorry about the ignorance of the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), but we can try to ensure that he is better informed about leading accountants in future.
The consequence of even the Government's modest reduction in class sizes at key stage 1 is a grotesque denial of parental choice throughout the country, as a result of which we are all getting letters of protest from parents, teachers and head teachers, telling us that they cannot run education locally to meet the needs of pupils. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip, from a sedentary position, expresses disapproval—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is not yet the Chief Whip, but he may be one day.
The hon. Gentleman will not escape from the other failure—the Government's disgraceful treatment of our grammar schools. Intervention, said the Secretary of State, will be in inverse proportion to success. Standards, not structures, the Government said. I have news for them. They cannot possibly object to the standards attained by grammar schools. It follows logically, therefore, that it is to their structure that Ministers mean-mindedly object.
Grammar schools are beacons of excellence in our education system, renowned for their academic results, their sporting prowess and their cultural achievements. There is no reason to interfere with them, other than political spite and malice on the part of the Government, more than a dozen of whose Cabinet Ministers since 1997 climbed the ladder of opportunity afforded by a grammar school education. Now they want to kick the ladder of opportunity away from today's bright children from ordinary backgrounds.
Why do not the Government concentrate on doing something about education in Manchester, Hackney, Calderdale, Haringey, Islington and Leicester—in the benighted areas represented by Labour Members and undermined by inadequate, ineffective, politically correct Labour local education authorities? [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like it, but there is a lot more to come, so they had better get used to it.
The Government's policy on school exclusions is equally stupid. They have a ridiculous, arbitrary, artificial target of reducing school exclusions by one third by 2002. What do the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association say of that ridiculous position? They say that it is unacceptable for the Government and local education authorities to undermine the legitimate management role of the head teacher by imposing targets for exclusions because it will not serve the interests of the school or meet the needs of individual pupils. It is just a totem of political correctness that causes the Government to opt for an artificial school exclusions target.
Conservatives believe in free schools. We believe in the pursuit of excellence. We believe in giving heads and governors the freedom to employ the staff whom they want, to set the timetable that they want, to operate the arrangements that they want, and to determine the opening hours and the term times that they want.
Our education system, as well as being characterised by choice, diversity and the pursuit of excellence, would be characterised by the six Rs: reading, writing, arithmetic, right, wrong and the acceptance of legitimate authority in the classroom, which is what the vast majority of parents throughout the country desire in our education system.
The Government have betrayed education. They have gigantically let down head teachers, teachers, parents, governors and pupils. It is a miserable record of failure, for which the Government should apologise to the House and to the country.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for providing the best advertisement yet for the literacy hour. I am not sure about the numeracy hour—I did not count six Rs, but I counted a W somewhere.
I join in the tribute that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) paid to the thousands of teachers who do a good job for children in our schools every day. They have responded magnificently to the many demands that the Government have made on them. Most teachers are good teachers. The Government will acknowledge that, and they will be rewarded.
I have some sympathy with the comments of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who made a sensible speech about the need for transparent funding.


He acknowledged that the funding system that his Government bequeathed us left much to be desired and should have been changed many years ago. The characteristics that the right hon. Gentleman outlined—accountability, transparency and ensuring that everybody knows where the money has gone—guide our work on devising a better system of funding. However, that does not detract from his responsibility for being part of a Government who did nothing to improve the system in the years when they were in power.

Mr. Dorrell: Will the Minister clarify whether her remarks mean that the Government accept the principle of per capita funding for each pupil in a school?

Ms Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to a similar question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough by saying that he was interested in an entitlement for children, and in providing a different amount of money for each age group. That remains our position.
I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for his contribution. As ever, it was interesting to listen to his comments. It was probably even more interesting for his Front-Bench colleagues, given that he has banned them from speaking about grammar schools in his constituency. Perhaps that is why the House filled up when he spoke. I hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) listened carefully. Tonight was probably her last chance to hear the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon speaking about grammar schools.
I am saddened by those on the Tory Front Bench, who seem to spend their time travelling around local authorities to look for the cloud in the silver lining. They seem to advertise for problems and say, "Wherever there's a problem, we'll come and look at it." However, for every local authority that Conservative Members visited or mentioned in the debate, they could have talked about the good things that were happening there, too.
In every local authority that Conservative Members visited, they could have seen extra classrooms and extra teachers, funded through the class size initiative. In every local authority, they could have found children who have nursery places, but would not have had them were the Conservative Government still in power. In 62 of the 150 local authorities, they could have marvelled at the opportunities created by the sure start scheme. In every local authority, they could have seen some of the 20,000 extra classroom assistants that the Government have funded. In every school, they could have celebrated with teachers the increase in literacy and numeracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, they could have marvelled at and shared in the sheer joy that many children experience in the structured learning that is based on best practice.
In every local authority, Conservative Members could have found teachers who have already taken advantage of the money for training in information and communication technology. They could have welcomed the increase from 5 per cent. to 62 per cent. of primary schools that are connected to the internet. They could have talked to the new head teachers in every local authority about the way in which they would use the new laptop computers that the Government recently provided. They could have chosen to visit schools that were financed through the new deal for schools and seen the capital work that is going on.
Everything that I have described could have been seen on any tour of the country. I know that everything is not perfect and that much remains to be done. Some schools still need repairing. However, after all the years of neglect, and of education being part of a Cinderella Department under the previous Government, we have made genuine progress in two and a half years on capital, curriculum, working with teachers, training leaders and out-of-school activities.
Conservative Members have been guilty of sleight of hand tonight in the way in which they have discussed funding. Not one of the initiatives that I have mentioned—from class size to classroom assistants, from national grid for learning to the new leadership college for head teachers—is funded through the straight revenue grant to schools. If Conservative Members want to present a fair picture of the Government's achievements in resourcing, they should not simply examine school budgets. They should add to that the money for the new deal for schools and the £1.6 billion of standards fund money.
The standards fund money is not awarded to pet political projects; it is used for reducing truancy—we care about that—so that we can develop new key stage 4 mechanisms to motivate children who might otherwise be turned off. That money will be used to ensure that, for the first time, children who are excluded receive full-time education rather than the pitiful two, three, four and five hours a week that they received under the previous Government. Standards fund money will be used to ensure that, for the first time, all head teachers have a qualification that means that they have the skills to do the job. That money, as well as the increase in funding, is being given to schools.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I know that she has only a short time to speak. She claims that we considered only the revenue grant that was given to schools. That is not true. The figures that I cited to show the Government's failure to deliver on funding were figures for net public expenditure on education. They included everything that the Minister mentioned. Does she now accept her failure?

Ms Morris: The figures show that during this Parliament, education spending as a share of gross domestic product will increase, whereas it decreased under the previous Government. Before the general election, we made a pledge to the electorate to increase education spending, and we shall keep it.
I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about attracting the brightest and the best into the teaching profession. For decade after decade, falling numbers of people have been attracted to teaching. The hon. Gentleman spoke as a head teacher when he mentioned the lack of money that was available for promoting staff. I ask him to look back and remember that when he wanted to promote members of staff, he could do that only by giving them management or administrative responsibilities. Through the reform of the teaching profession, the Government have, for the first time, ensured that head teachers will be able to give points for classroom practice and reward existing excellence in schools. We have made it clear that that money will be available, that it will not mean a change in contract and that teachers will not be asked to take on extra responsibilities.
In two years' time, we shall review our method of feeding that money into schools. That makes sense. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an absolute pledge last week that the extra money would be provided. I hope that that is a cause for celebration: at long last, we have put teaching back at the centre of school activities. We should reward teaching, not management and administration, for which the likes of the hon. Gentleman and I managed to get our responsibility points.
The Tories are keen to promote the notion of free schools. I have no problem with allowing good schools to get on with doing what they do best. However, I have a problem with the concept of free schools when it means no literacy or numeracy hour, no sharing of good practice, no focus on reducing truancy and exclusions, and no class size policy. There is no point in Conservative Members moaning about class sizes; in free schools, classes would be allowed simply to increase, exactly as they did under the previous Government. There would be no measures to act quickly if those schools required special measures or were failing. In 1997, that attitude of let it all hang out and laissez faire led to the circumstances in which four out of 10 youngsters could not read, write or do sums, in which the backlog in school repairs cost £4 billion, in which exclusions increased year after year, and in which there was no focus on standards.
Rather than travelling around the country, the hon. Member for Maidenhead should consider her constituency, where the number of infants in classes of more than 30 has halved in the past two years. In Maidenhead, £128,000 has been spent on 15 teachers, and more than £250,000 has been spent on six classrooms. That is bettered by the constituency of the hon. Member for Buckingham: the number of children in classes of more than 30 has fallen from 6,500 to fewer than 1,500 under this Government and he has netted money for 21 new classrooms and 99 new teachers. Hon. Members should believe what happens rather than the words of a party whose representatives are travelling the country to find failure. Let us rejoice in the success of our teachers and our schools, note that we have made progress and be determined to achieve even more.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 300.

Division No. 84]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Curry, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Cash, William
Fabricant, Michael





Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gale, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Prior, David


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robertson, Laurence


Hammond, Philip
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hawkins, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald Oliver
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Soames, Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lansley, Andrew
Townend, John


Leigh, Edward
Tredinnick, David


Letwin, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyrie Andrew


Lidington, David
Walter, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Mates, Michael
and


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Peter Luff.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Baker, Norman
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Burnett, John


Barron, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Bermingham, Gerald
Caplin, Ivor


Berry, Roger
Casale, Roger


Best, Harold
Cawsey, Ian


Betts, Clive
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blackman, Liz
Chaytor, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chisholm, Malcolm


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clapham, Michael


Borrow, David
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)



Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Breed, Colin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)






Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coleman, Iain
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dismore, Andrew
Kidney, David


Dobbin, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lepper, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gibson, Dr Ian
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maxton, John


Hancock, Mike
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Harris, Dr Evan
Merron, Gillian


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Miller, Andrew


Healey, John
Mitchell, Austin


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moore, Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hesford, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith



Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey






Mountford, Kali
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mudie, George
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spellar, John


Norris, Dan
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Öpik, Lembit
Stinchcombe, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pendry, Tom
Stringer, Graham


Perham, Ms Linda
Stuart Ms Gisela


Pickthall Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt James
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pollard Kerry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pond Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pound Stephen
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Touhig, Don


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Trickett, Jon


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Derek (Halton)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tyler Paul


Rogers, Allan
Tynan, Bill


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Ms Claire


Roy, Frank
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Salter, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Sanders, Adrian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Willis, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Wills, Michael


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Shaw, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Greg Pope and


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to raising standards and achieving excellence for all from the early years to life-long learning after 18 years of neglect; recognises that education spending will rise as a share of national income over the course of this Parliament, in contrast to a decline of 0.3 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1996–97; recognises the early success in lowering class sizes in the early years and the achievement of introducing the literacy and numeracy strategies which, with the hard work and commitment of teachers, have raised standards; supports the promotion of diversity which will deliver excellence for the many and not the few; recognises the role of specialist schools and the importance of excellence in cities; supports the drive to raise standards in secondary schools through the extension of the


literacy and numeracy strategies and an expanded programme of summer schools; recognises the value of teachers and supports the new proposals for performance-related promotion; recognises the role of school leaders; notes the increase of £1.8 billion in funding for schools and Local Education Authorities in England for the coming year and the role of the fair funding framework in tackling excessive bureaucracy and ensuring that increased funding benefits classroom services; notes the increased resources made available to expand access and improve quality in further and higher education; and supports the Government's determination to build a socially inclusive knowledge economy in which learning and skills are the foundation of success and prosperity.

Points of Order

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you and Madam Speaker—indeed, all occupants of the Chair—have always been careful to ensure that the needs of Members and their constituents are dealt with properly in ministerial correspondence. I therefore thought it right to draw to your attention an example of a letter that I received today about a constituency case. So that you are aware that this is not a minor matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me tell you that the letter came from something called the parliamentary correspondence ministerial section—it is not a question of a junior clerk's having got something wrong.
The letter starts off well enough in referring to me correctly, but then begins "Dear Mr. Pickthall". As I am sure you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my constituents would be slightly puzzled by my being confused with the hon. Member for West Lancashire. The letter then refers to my constituents. In my initial letter, I made it clear that I was writing on behalf of both of them. The wife, sadly, suffers from multiple sclerosis. The reply from the ministerial section of the Benefits Agency says, "We cannot tell you anything about the wife's case, because you need a Data Protection Act order authority to refer to the husband." The two are, of course, living together as husband and wife.
The reply finally states, "We cannot disclose any information the agency hold on Mr. Smith." Mr. Smith is not connected in any way with the case, so where he came from is as much a mystery as the reference to the hon. Member for West Lancashire.
From that catalogue of errors in a letter about a constituency case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand the crucial importance of Ministers' supervising correspondence themselves. Would you be prepared to draw the matter to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Social Security, to ensure that, in future, letters containing three serious errors are not sent to Members when they concern constituents' urgent cases?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am sure that someone in the Department will read Hansard.

Millennium Dome

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the fact that Government interference in the Millennium Dome has rendered it a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money.
It is nice to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the second time today, but I regret that, because of the time taken during our first encounter, there is so little time left to debate the dome. It is also a pity that the Minister responsible for it, Lord Falconer, is safely ensconced elsewhere. He, not the Secretary of State, answers for the Government on dome matters.
Let me begin by making what may be a slightly embarrassing confession. From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome and an enthusiast for the Greenwich site. I know that there are domophobes on both sides of the House—people who think that the whole project was destined to be a failure and a waste of money. I am not one of those people. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber and who is often credited with having inspired the project and enabled it to happen at all. Back in 1997, in evidence to the Select Committee, he said:
I feel that it is right in the conduct of the nation's affairs every so often for nations to make a great statement of confidence, of great commitment to their own pride in the past and optimism in the future. There could be no more obvious moment to do that than on the anniversary of the millennium.
I entirely endorse those sentiments. I wish that that aspiration had been fulfilled, but no one visiting the dome today could say with honesty that it has been.
The problems at the dome have resulted directly from the meddling and interference of Ministers. In fact, the problems began before the last general election, with the refusal of the Labour Opposition to make up their mind about whether, if elected, they would continue with the project. As a result of that prevarication, a valuable nine months—at least—were lost. Partly as a consequence of that, time, instead of being a theme for the dome, became an enemy.
Following the decision to proceed with the project, the Government made their next big mistake. They appointed the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), Labour's archspin doctor, to be the sole shareholder in the project. The warnings were there: the only other project that the right hon. Gentleman had masterminded was shallow, confused, all things to all people, long on height and bereft of vision. It was the monstrous blancmange of Labour's general election victory—a monstrous blancmange that is now going squishy at the edges, past its sell-by date and liable to give voters the runs.
Not surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman's appointment was seen as harnessing the dome—and, indeed, all millennium projects, whether they originated from religious faith or from a sense of community spirit—to Labour's campaign to win the next general election. I am happy to say that most of the other projects,


especially the smaller ones, have been reclaimed by the people up and down the country, but for the dome there was no escape. The arrival of the right hon. Gentleman began a process of obsessive secrecy, which has been one of the abiding characteristics of the way in which the project has been handled and of its public relations—obsessive secrecy illumined occasionally by flashes of the absurd or surreal.
I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you recall the trip to Disneyworld, and the photo-call with the world's most famous mouse. In view of recent events, it was a somewhat ironic trip. Do you recall the birth of "Baby Dome"? Whatever became of "Baby Dome"? [Interruption.] No doubt it was the victim of a ruthless infanticide, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—to whose contributions to our debates on the dome I pay tribute—so admirably points out.
Do you remember "surfball", the exciting new game, Mr. Deputy Speaker? "Surfball" turned out to be a figment: it turned out to be "surfballs". Then there was the tantalising glimpse of the body zone, which involved first a giant man, and then a man, a woman and a baby—another baby that disappeared. Finally, there was an androgenous figure; at that stage, no one knew that, sadly, it was infected with pubic lice.
Not surprisingly, the dome became the butt of jokes. According to The Times:
Attacking the Dome has become the nation's favourite sport.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members should go and have a look.

Mr. James Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: I will, but I shall not do so very often, because we are short of time.

Mr. Plaskitt: If the dome is a joke, as the hon. Gentleman says, can he explain why it is now the most popular tourist attraction in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that. I was quoting The Times, which pointed out that the dome had become the butt of the nation's humour.
There is a lack of candour in financial matters. That was regretted by the Select Committee on more than one occasion, but not addressed by the Ministers concerned. At one point last year, several different figures for the amount of sponsorship that had been received were spun simultaneously. That is par for the course perhaps from a press office that has been heavily infiltrated by Millbank implants and described by one former insider as "really rather nasty". The handling of the press office and its bullying approach to journalists over time might have done more to undermine the dome's reputation than even the shenanigans on new year's eve, of which I should record that my family and I were beneficiaries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I use the term "beneficiaries" advisedly.
With the demise, albeit temporary, of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, there was a golden opportunity for a fresh start on the project. We argued then for the appointment of a person with relevant business and tourism skills and knowledge to head the project.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has announced that he went on a free trip

because, previously, he had announced to everyone in the Chamber that he had paid to go in the dome. Perhaps now we have had the clarification that we expected.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is silly and is wasting time. I went to the dome on new year's eve. I went back to the dome after the opening and paid for my own ticket. I understand that that is one more time than the Secretary of State, who has been there only on new years's eve, according a recent parliamentary answer.
The impression of control by the political image doctors was only reinforced by the appointment of Lord Falconer—not just any old crony but the apogee of cronydom, the Prime Minister's trusted former flatmate. Although less prone to surfballing and more convivial than his saturnine predecessor, Lord Falconer did nothing to stem the tide of bad publicity. The project was characterised by exactly the same lack of candour and blithe reassurances to genuine questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As things got worse, the Government decided on a new tack: anyone criticising the dome, or the way in which it was managed was suddenly unpatriotic or a whinger.

Ms Hazel Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: No, I will not.

Ms Blears: rose—

Mr. Ainsworth: All right; I give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms Blears: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that his constant denigration of the dome has a terrible effect on those children—hundreds of thousands of them—who are going to the dome to do the "our town story", as Salford children did last week? They are proud of their cities and their heritage. He should be ashamed of his constant denigration of those children's activities.

Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Lady had paid attention to any of the discussions that we have had on the dome in the past 18 months, she would have heard me being supportive of the project. It is not Conservative Members who have made the dome what it is today. It is not they who have enabled children to visit only two of the zones. It is not they who have given rise to children from Yorkshire being offered an 8 am slot for their visit to the dome, which would mean their getting up at 2 am. She should look at what is going on before criticising Conservative Members.
Last autumn's draw-down of the £50 million facility from the Millennium Commission is another prime example of appalling media relations. That £50 million had always been in the budget, but it had never been referred to, so, not surprisingly, commentators saw it as a new cash injection and that is how it was portrayed.
Similarly inept was the attempt to spin the emergency cash-flow boost in January as perfectly in line with expectations. Shortly after the opening night, I warned that the project might run into cash-flow difficulties in the near future and need an injection of funds, but not even I had expected that need to arise so soon. No one in their


right mind plans to receive an emergency cash injection to avoid insolvent trading. To have pretended otherwise was absurd.
Incidentally, I have yet to meet anyone who favours giving more money to the project. Perhaps the Secretary of State has. If so, I will be delighted to hear who. I will also be delighted to hear what guarantee he can offer that the dome will not be back for more. He is silent on that, but I hope that when he answers he will offer some relevant remarks.
The media had just about had their fill of patronising and misleading claptrap when it was suddenly claimed that, instead of needing 12 million visitors to break even—the figure that had been in the public domain for about two years—the dome would need only 10 million visitors. I am certain that that miraculous change in the economics of the dome had nothing whatever to do with the fact that, at that time, the public were staying away in droves.
Dome watchers had worked out by mid-January that, as crisis followed crisis, there would be a need for a scapegoat. They had also worked out that under no circumstances would that scapegoat be a Minister.
Jennie Page, redoubtable and feisty as she is, is a public servant by instinct and training. She had possibly the worst job in Britain and she did it very well. It was made even worse by the constant interference from Ministers, which she found exasperating. To deliver the project on time and to budget by 31 December was no mean achievement. She deserved better than a public and acrimonious dismissal.
We are told that it was Lord Falconer himself who, on the day of Jennie Page's departure, personally telephoned a number of the sponsors to tell them about her replacement. The Secretary of State has written to me on the subject. He played no part in the shameful affair. He is exonerated, but I should be grateful if he confirmed that it is his understanding that Lord Falconer telephoned the sponsors on the day that Jennie Page left. If so, will he share with the House his understanding of what Lord Falconer said to the sponsors because there seems to have been some misunderstanding? They were left with the impression that the dome's new chief executive was to be the man who saved Disneyland Paris. That was Philippe Bourguignon, not P-Y Gerbeau. It was another masterly display of cack-handed spin, in which the Minister was personally involved.
I wish P-Y, as we must grow to know and to love him, very well. It is not his fault that his appointment prompted Le Monde to gloat:
A Frenchman, a garlic eater, a vulgar frog is to rescue the failure of what Tony Blair only 2 months ago called 'This extraordinary Testament to British creativity'".
The dome is indeed a national embarrassment.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the dome has become in the public mind and certainly in the media's mind is a testament to new Labour, the epitome, a paradigm—all spin and no substance?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. If he waits, I may dwell briefly on that theme, too.

Mr. Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: I will not at the moment.
P-Y appears to have got off to a good start, helped by half-term and by the weather, although people do not have to pay £20 to go to the dome to watch a rugby international, however gratifying the result. He faces an unenviable task, hampered again by time—the project's enemy—and by money. He is also hampered by the content of the dome itself.
The original vision for the dome was noble and thoughtful: a symbol of Britain on the cusp of the new millennium, a celebration of our past. History has been air-brushed from the dome. The theme of time has become a mere memory. It was a chance to take stock of ourselves as a nation and to glimpse the future with the help of the best of our creative talent and cutting-edge technology, but the dome is not a symbol of Britain. It is a symbol of a trite, self-regarding and bossy Government who believe in nothing and have to their credit only a mounting pile of broken promises and malfunctioning zones, such as health, crime and rural areas. The Government have fashioned a dome in their own image, partly on purpose, partly by mistake.
When the creative director, Stephen Bayley, walked out on the project because he could not hack the daily intrusions by Ministers in a project that was meant to be above politics, the dome was consigned to whatever fate bureaucrats, long-suffering and competing sponsors and Ministers could incompetently contrive between them. The result is the noisy, brash, part dull, part sensational exhibition that we are discussing tonight.
Sure, people will go, and good luck to them. I hope that they have a great day. Sure, children will enjoy the day out. When did children ever not enjoy a day out?

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Often.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman obviously leads a sad life. We took the children to Brighton at the weekend. They had a very good day out and I do not think that Brighton has had £400 million of lottery money. It does not take £400 million of lottery money to give children a good day out.
The staff at the dome are universally helpful. I am told that the show is good as well, but on the day I went—and paid for my ticket—I was told that the show that I wanted to see had been cancelled owing to a lack of visitors.
What do people say about value for money at the dome?

Mr. Roger Gale: The cost of the dome is continually presented as not being a charge on the taxpayer. It is not clear whom the Government think that £400 million of lottery money came from if not from the taxpayer by another means. Unlike the Government, my hon. Friend has paid some attention to tourism. Could he make a guesstimate of what £400 million might have done for the seaside heritage of Britain?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend tempts me down a road that I do not wish to travel. The Government have


many times admitted that lottery money is public money. Obviously, £400 million could have done a great deal for our tourist areas. However, the British Tourist Authority anticipates that the dome will attract a significant number of visitors, although I doubt that the claim that it will attract £1 billion of extra spending is anywhere near the mark.
People who go to the dome have a reasonable day. There is no doubt about that. However, do they think that the money spent on it was well spent? A handy website—www.DomeVote.co.uk—has been set up to enable those who have visited the dome to voice their opinions. The first question is, "Is the dome worth £758 million?" So far, 16 per cent. say yes and 78 per cent. say no. Some 48 per cent. rate the dome as a waste of money and 39 per cent. say that the queues are too long. The dome is not cutting it in terms of value for money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a few moments ago, the dome is an emblem of new Labour. It betrays a failure of vision. Worse, it betrays an inability to understand where politics should give way to art, design, science, architecture and history. It is not a triumph of spin over substance because it is not a triumph at all.
In the long run, what happens after the exhibition closes will be of far greater importance than the exhibition itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will confirm, Greenwich was chosen partly because of its location on the meridian line, but also because of the immense possibilities for regeneration in that part of London. It is worrying that Ministers have got off to such a delayed start in seeking bids for the site. It is worrying that nobody seems to have calculated the cost of decommissioning the exhibition. It is worrying that there appears to be a dispute with British Gas over the site. I am sure that the last thing that any of us wants is for the dome to stand idle for months after the exhibition closes at the end of the year. We want to get on with creating jobs and creating a development that will bring something of great value to the capital city and to the nation as a whole.
All that is for the future. For now, our message to Ministers is that they have done enough damage: leave P-Y to get on with the job, and leave the dome alone.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that the Millennium Experience—and the many other Millennium activities—represent both an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations; further welcomes the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission; and, in particular, notes the record attendances at the Dome in the week commencing 7th February and the recent high satisfaction ratings amongst visitors.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important subject, if not for a speech that amply justified the title "monstrous blancmange".
I am sure that our discussions this evening will focus on the dome, but it is important that we see it in its proper context. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that

context matters. We have always said that the dome was the centrepiece of the country's overall millennium celebrations. Those celebrations comprise a rich and colourful tapestry of projects and schemes that embrace the whole country and will enrich our cultural life for many years. There are projects as diverse as the immensely successful dynamic earth centre in Edinburgh, the new Tate gallery of modern art on Bankside and the spectrum of new village halls and greens that are being supported throughout the country.
There are also projects such as the millennium awards scheme, which enables thousands of ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things. It has helped 10,000 people to date, aged between 16 and 92. Grants from the millennium festival fund will enable communities in villages and towns across the country to mark the millennium in their own special way. Two projects were opened to the public just last week—the new art gallery and conservation centre at the Peter Scott wildfowl and wetlands trust headquarters at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire and the access no barrier project, which is a centre providing facilities for the physically handicapped and able bodied club in Jarrow.
Of course the dome matters, but it matters because it is part of a wider entity, not because it is the entirety of what we are doing. Let us remember that four fifths of Millennium Commission funds are going to projects, events and people other than the dome.

Mr. Richard Spring: The right hon. Gentleman has made our point. Because everything has been so dome-centric, attention has not been drawn to all the other worthwhile and magnificent projects. With all their appalling handling of the situation, the Government have ensured that attention is focused on the dome. That has discredited the whole millennium exercise.

Mr. Smith: I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it might have been better if the Opposition had tabled a motion about the entirety of the millennium celebrations, events and projects if that was how they felt.
It saddens me to hear the hon. Member for East Surrey criticising the project and trying to make the dome a partisan issue. One of the project's greatest strengths is that it has enjoyed good cross-party support. Neither the dome nor the other millennium projects should be seen as the property of one political party. The Conservatives are trying to do that. I am sorry that they are unable to feel some pride in their initiative to use part of the national lottery for millennium schemes. It was their idea to have a strand of lottery spending devoted to the millennium, their idea to establish the Millennium Commission and their idea to develop the dome. It is not, and should not be seen as, a political entity. The same is true of the other millennium projects and events. The aim of all the projects is to represent the aspirations of a nation and to provide an opportunity for enjoyment for communities and individuals across the UK.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that everyone applauds the successful millennium projects to which the Secretary of State has referred. What does he feel about the second millennium failure—the plastic cone-topped tower in Portsmouth? It has been four years in the planning with three false starts, but still there has been no contract, no planning permission and no works


act, yet £14 million of lottery money is still tied up in the project. Will he give us an update on that project and tell us when it will be built?

Mr. Smith: I understand that the rest of the Portsmouth scheme, involving the rehabilitation of the waterfront, is forging ahead very well. The city council is in discussion with the Millennium Commission about the tower. It has some proposals that appear to be viable. They need to be tested but, if they are indeed found to be viable, they will be proceeded with.
The hon. Member for East Surrey talks about political interference in the project. I cannot accept that accusation. The Government are not running the millennium experience, nor should we be. The previous Government recognised the national significance of the project by appointing a Minister as sole shareholder of the operating company. We have retained that arrangement because we believe that it is right for a national project of this scale to be subject to proper parliamentary accountability.
It was important that the Minister holding the share should not be the same Minister as the one chairing the Millennium Commission—that is, myself—and ultimately providing the finance. As the New Millennium Experience Company shareholder, Lord Falconer is accountable to Parliament for the millennium experience. That means that he needs to take an active interest in the project's development and progress along its critical path, but that is very different from interfering in the day-to-day management, which is the responsibility of the NMEC board.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: How then does the Secretary of State explain the frustration and exasperation repeatedly expressed by Jennie Page about the constant, almost daily, interference by Ministers in affairs that she considered to be her own?

Mr. Smith: That is not something that she has ever said to me. If it had happened, it would have been regrettable; but it did not. The shareholder of the millennium experience set the overall parameters, along with the Millennium Commission, which is funding the project, but the day-to-day development and running of the experience are up to the board of the company and those running it. The Government believe in proper accountability, not unnecessary interference. We are not in the business of directly running visitor attractions.
I am proud to account for what has been achieved so far. Let us consider the first weekend: the turn of the millennium year. Well over 4.5 million people joined in the festivities in the 22 cities that received special grants from the commission to celebrate the run-up to, and the arrival of, 2000. As the report that I placed in the Library the other week shows, the celebrations were a great success and were well received by both those who attended and those who watched on television.
The dome opening celebrations involved more than 10,000 people, the majority members of the general public, and was viewed by 1 billion people on television around the world. The four millennium Church services on 2 January in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast involved more than 5,000 people: members of

communities and Christian congregations the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, as well as members of the royal family and both Government and Opposition Members of Parliament.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State remind the House how much compensation was paid to those who had their evening spoilt on new year's eve?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I am just about to come to that.
In addition to the millennium Church services on 2 January, the shared act of reflection and commitment by the faith communities of the UK, held in the Royal Gallery here at the Palace of Westminster the following day, was a very special and historic occasion, bringing together faith leaders and others from communities throughout the country to focus on the values that we need to shape society for the future.
Not surprisingly, there were a few glitches. Perhaps the most widely reported—or milked, depending on the agenda of those commenting—were the delays at Stratford tube station for those travelling to the dome for the opening celebrations. The arrangements for guests using Stratford did indeed go wrong. People should not have experienced the lengthy delays that they had to endure. Both NMEC and the Metropolitan police have apologised to those affected, and NMEC has offered—this is the answer to the question that the hon. Member for East Surrey asked—all those who used Stratford complimentary tickets for use during the year.
Despite the problems, virtually everyone enjoyed the evening, including many who travelled through Stratford. The millennium celebrations have continued since that first weekend. The dome opened its doors to its first paying visitors on 1 January. So far, 700,000 people have been, and the overwhelming verdict has been one of satisfaction and enjoyment. People like the dome.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: To reinforce that point, a letter in the Brighton Evening Argus of 17 February says:
I would like to put the record straight over the bad publicity concerning the Millennium Dome.
It is a great achievement to build such a modern building. It is impressive and functional.
It is a splendid exhibition centre with many interesting displays with something for everybody.
The afternoon spectacular show is really something worth seeing.
I shall go again and I am a senior citizen.
Is that not the true reason for the dome?

Mr. Smith: That is indeed the overwhelming verdict of those who go to the dome. Indeed, some primary school children from Hull visited the dome this very morning. Louis Dorton, who is 11, said:
I loved it all, the show was absolutely terrific, it's the best thing I've ever seen.
Kimberley Barlow, who is 10, said:
The millennium show was amazing—the gymnasts are incredible and I don't know how they manage half the things they do. I'm amazed at it all.
Time after time, those are the sort of comments that people who visit the dome make about their visit.
Despite what the media and some politicians may say, people who visit the dome thoroughly enjoy it and most would recommend it to their friends. Of course, the dome is not the first example of the professional critics misjudging the public's reaction; nor is the visiting public's positive feedback some kind of hyped-up spin from NMEC or the Government: it is more than borne out by independent polls commissioned by the very newspapers that in the same breath criticise the dome.
The Sunday Times found that 85 per cent. of visitors said that they had enjoyed their visit to the dome and 74 per cent. would recommend it to their friends; a poll in The Mirror found that 71 per cent. rated the dome as "good" or "very good"; Independent Television News found that 91 per cent. of those interviewed thought the dome worth the trip; and 61 per cent. of those interviewed by The Independent thought the dome and its contents spectacular. That same poll found that 0 per cent. thought it dull, yet in the self-same edition of the self-same paper, the leading article asked why so many people found the dome dull.
When I visited the dome myself as a paying visitor on Saturday—and had an extremely enjoyable time—it was obvious that the very large number of people there were enjoying themselves; quite a few of them came up to me to make that very point.
With immaculate timing, as always, the Opposition have called for this debate at the very time when we have had the four best-ever days of attendance at the dome. On Friday, there were 27,000 visitors; on Saturday, 24,700; on Sunday, 26,200; and this morning the dome was totally sold out by 11.30.
The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned the recent change of chief executive at NMEC and the resignation of the operations director. The House will be aware that Jennie Page stood down as chief executive earlier this month. The NMEC board has appointed P-Y Gerbeau to succeed her, reflecting the view that a different set of skills was needed to manage the project during its year of operation. I will comment in a moment about Mr. Gerbeau's appointment, but I wish to pause briefly to reflect on Jennie's achievements on the project.
When Jennie accepted the post of chief executive of the then Millennium Central Ltd., three years ago, many people thought that completing the dome on time and on budget was an impossible task. Indeed, many thought the same when she previously took on the post of chief executive of the Millennium Commission. Both tasks required a unique vision and both required commitment, dedication and determination—skills that Jennie has in spades. Jennie met both of those challenges with her customary enthusiasm, intelligence and style. To build the dome on time and on budget was an enormous task in anybody's book. To do all of that under the intense scrutiny of both the media and Parliament was even more of a challenge, but it was a challenge to which Jennie was more than equal and I wish to put firmly on record my gratitude for her tremendous achievement in bringing the project to fruition.
The NMEC board's decision to appoint Mr. Gerbeau in no way detracts from Jennie's achievements. I can tell the hon. Member for East Surrey that it was a decision of the board. In answer to his specific question, Lord Falconer did telephone sponsors on Friday 4 February. He informed

them that P-Y Gerbeau would replace Jennie Page and he indicated that P-Y was part of the team who turned round Disney in Paris.

Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Smith: No, I must make progress. The board believed that running a major visitor attraction required very different skills from those required to take that unique project from concept through development of content, including the national programme linked to the dome, to construction and fit-out of the dome itself. P-Y Gerbeau's experience as part of the Disney team will help to deliver the visitor experience that the visiting public anticipate. He has been in the job for two weeks and already decisions have been taken to improve signing, to provide more entertainment for visitors between the zones, to develop more activity in the central arena, to provide a better management of visitor flows, and to bring in greater flexibility in ticketing and marketing.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the additional grant that the Millennium Commission has agreed to make available to NMEC to help with its cash-flow requirements in the early months of this year. As the House is aware, I am the chairman of the commission. The commission has recognised from the outset that cash-flow difficulties are often associated with large-scale start-up businesses. Provisions to deal with such potential difficulties in the case of the dome always formed part of the arrangements between the commission and NMEC. The commission has therefore agreed to provide up to £60 million in additional cash-flow support, subject to demonstration of need and to vigorous appraisal.
The commission has so far released £32 million of additional repayable grant in that way. The release of the remainder will similarly be in accordance only with demonstrable need. Both NMEC and the commission keep the company's budgets, commercial plans and operational strategies under review and the latest such appraisal by the commission will be completed shortly. The final decision on how much additional cashflow support might in fact be needed, and when it should be paid, will be taken in the light of that appraisal.
In all this, let us not forget that, even before it opened, the dome had already made a major impact on the economy of the local area. Thanks to the dome, one of the poorest areas of the country has undergone a transformation. The dome has been a catalyst for a whole range of environmental and infrastructural improvements that will leave a very tangible and lasting legacy for the people of Greenwich and the wider United Kingdom. A derelict gasworks site has been cleaned up, in what is widely recognised as a model for brownfield site development across Europe. One can now travel between central London and the north Greenwich peninsula on the new Jubilee line extension in only 12 minutes and the new river boat services have once again brought the Thames into play as one of the great communication links of the capital. We have the new millennium village, with its mix of social and commercial housing and its modern, energy-efficient designs, and £300 million to £500 million extra tourist spend is expected across the UK this year as a direct result of the dome, with a halo effect of double that.
Regeneration is not just about money and places: it is about people. Perhaps the greatest testimony to the dome is that it has been the catalyst for the creation of around


13,000 jobs, both in itself and in the developments around it on the peninsula. The impact that those have made and will continue to make on the life of the community is, in my mind, far more important than the empty whingeing from the Opposition. The millennium celebrations are about making a real difference to the lives of the people of this country, through jobs, through boosts to the economy and through regeneration. That is what is at stake and that is what we should focus on tonight. Anything that can have such an enormous positive impact on the life of both its local community and the national economy should be encouraged, not knocked. We need to stop talking it down, get behind the project, give our full support to the NMEC team at the dome and together make it work.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am grateful to be called. The House will know that it is now some years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, invited me to become a member of the Millennium Commission. As the House will also know, the commission was one of the distributor bodies set up under the previous Government to distribute funds gathered by the national lottery. It cannot be disputed that there has never been such an infusion of funds into good causes—the charities, arts, heritage, culture and sport—under any Government policy ever initiated in this country at any time in our history. That is a proud claim to make on behalf of a policy initiative by my right hon. Friend.
Part of my right hon. Friend's vision was that it should be an all-party concept, and when the Millennium Commission was set up under the chairmanship of the responsible Minister at the time, a representative of the Labour party, the late Michael Montague, was invited to join the commission to ensure that it was conducted on an all-party basis. There has never been a party political discussion in the commission. Having attended meetings for some years, I do not even know the party choices of the members of the commission. They have not been relevant to our deliberations.
The decision to attempt a great celebration was predictably controversial. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was stopped in its tracks by Tory Members of Parliament who complained about the design, which led to the redesign by Paxton that enabled the project to proceed. The 1951 celebration, the Festival of Britain, was equally controversial and, on a tiny and humble scale, the Liverpool garden festival, for which I was responsible in the early 1980s, was treated precisely the same way as we anticipated the dome would be. And so it has been. As the Secretary of State said, the dome was designed to be an all-party statement about Britain's prowess. That was the context of the birth pains that such projects characteristically undergo in this country.
Looking back, I remember that people said we would never do it, but we did. They said that we would never do it to cost or to time, but we did. The headlines screamed that we would never get the Jubilee line open and that no one would be able to get to the dome, but the line did open and people are getting to the dome. At every turn, the whole process has been attacked—ruthlessly and irresponsibly—by the national press. Unlike many hon.

Members, I have spent my life in the commercial world launching projects. I know that they are always a risk, that there is always, by definition, an element of unpredictability, and that things go wrong. In my experience, it is impossible to conceive that a project could be successful if every question were asked at every stage, and if those managing the project were held to every decision that they ever took.
The most obvious example involves the project's sponsorship. It fell to my noble Friend Lord Levene to help in raising the money. He and I advised the commission that we thought that we could raise £150 million. From that moment, the media rendered that task well nigh impossible. Every time we opened our mouths, we were asked whether we had secured the money—if we said, "Not yet," the headlines claimed that we had failed to get the money. When asked how much we had secured, we would say that we had a list of prospects, that some were firm, some less so, and that we still had to talk to some of them. The press response then was to ask, "So you haven't got anything you can prove?" We had to admit that we had not, and from that moment on the attacks began to build.
As confidence began to be undermined, a number of company chairman who had been broadly sympathetic to our aims asked how they could continue with the project. They said that their under-managers believed that their companies would be made laughing stocks, and the same questions were asked—about value for money, about whether the dome would be ready on time, and about how people would get there. On and on it went: I believe that our national press cost the project at least tens of millions of pounds in lost sponsorship because of the uncertainties that were built up into crises.
In the event, Lord Levene and I secured more than £150 million, as we had always believed we would. However, problems remain. Some sponsors have not paid yet: although the sponsoring companies' chairmen came on board with good will, their underlings tried almost immediately to turn the zone that was being sponsored into something closer to a trade show than the editorial concept behind the project allowed. So the process unfolded.
The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), was accused of being obsessively secretive. I find that hard to recognise: every Tuesday, Simon Jenkins, my fellow commissioner and a former editor of The Times and the Evening Standard and I met the right hon. Gentleman and subsequently his successor, Lord Falconer, to go through every relevant detail about the dome. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) were invited, on various occasions, to see the same presentations that we had seen. I can only assume that they took advantage of those offers and were relatively content with what they witnessed. Therefore, I do not believe that there was excessive secrecy.

Mr. Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) did not utter a word in the Chamber about the project for many months into the life of this Parliament? In fact, no debate was held on the subject until 1998, and the then Minister with responsibility for the dome was required


only to answer questions before the House for five minutes once a month. That hardly amounted to parliamentary accountability.

Mr. Heseltine: It is within the gift of opposition parties, if they feel that they are not getting the answers that they need, to hold debates on matters of their choosing. In fairness, I must admit that I would not have wanted to debate the matter either. How can a project of such complexity and sophistication be debated as it unfolds? How seriously can people be expected to pin down answers?
Before the House becomes convinced of how it will determine the outcome of tonight's debate, I suggest that hon. Members consider two other great projects undertaken in this country on the same time scale. First, Covent Garden opera house has been rebuilt, and is now one of the great opera houses in the world—and the clamour for it to be closed because of teething troubles has now gone. Secondly, the millennium wheel is one of the most inventive tourist attractions ever created in this country, but its builders had to delay its opening for a month until they could be sure that it would work safely. The fact is that things go wrong with great projects. I would be the first to say that there have been plenty of examples of things going wrong, and the Secretary of State has mentioned some of them. There was the catastrophic opening evening, with the Stratford delay. The fact is, we must look at these matters in context.
The dome is now operating, and the numbers of people visiting it are building significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey spoke of a test on an internet website regarding people's view of the dome. As I listened, it occurred to me that that was a fairly narrow test of opinion. How many people in this country are able to access the internet? Who will bother to access it? It would be more realistic if all the national newspapers, which have headlined the weaknesses all the way through in the polls to which the Secretary of State has referred, revealed that the majority of people going to the dome like it, and think it well worth while. How is it that that view is never flavoured in the headlines of the same newspapers, which go on repeating the same arguments that they have run ever since the concept was initiated some years ago?

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: There may be a misunderstanding. The poll to which I referred dealt with the public's attitude towards value for money, not with their reaction to a day at the dome.

Mr. Heseltine: I understood the point that my hon. Friend was making, but I remain where I began. What sort of people would go to the trouble of accessing that site and from what sort of background would they come? Do they meet the test that we faced, as millennium commissioners, of providing an experience that was not just entertaining but educational, and would appeal to the majority of people? How does one appeal to elderly people who are retired, to young people, to children and to middle-aged people and avoid the charge of producing something that is relatively wide in its appeal as opposed to narrow and intellectually excellent?

Ms Claire Ward: Might I help the right hon. Gentleman and suggest that the kind of people who would

access that dome site are sitting on the Conservative Benches? They clearly do not have the ability to look much further than what is being projected on to that dome site by some very sad people.

Mr. Heseltine: Before the hon. Lady gets carried away, if she has criticisms of my hon. Friends, she should have listened to what her party was like in opposition. The lengths to which they went to exploit difficulties made what we have heard today seem as nothing.
There is one point on which I would like to follow the Secretary of State. Jennie Page has been replaced, following her resignation as chief executive. I have known Jennie Page since her days at English Heritage, and then as chief executive of the Millennium Commission. She is, in my view, one of the outstanding public servants of her day. The fact that her arrangements were terminated, with or without agreement, by the New Millennium Experience Company, is a matter of the most profound regret. However, that does not make it the wrong decision in the circumstances.
Jennie Page confounded the critics and delivered the project to time and to budget. As the great civil servant that she is, she had to assess a whole range of conflicting professional advice and to take from that the means by which the project was delivered. That is a different skill from feeling in one's bones, from long personal experience, how to deal with day-to-day problems. The board could well have felt that someone who was not reliant upon outside expertise but who had hands-on personal experience was needed to cope with the teething problems. It would be very difficult to run those two people in harness. Jennie Page is nothing if not a determined and extremely talented deliverer of results. Those results are in the classic public sector mould, and I have not the slightest doubt that her future career in the public sector will build on the excellence of what she has achieved to date.
I have one last point to make, and it is the last point to which the Secretary of State referred. In 1979, I looked with horror at the east end of London. The Labour-dominated Greater London council and the Labour-dominated London boroughs had ensured that there were thousands and thousands of acres of derelict land, apparently with no future. The Government of whom I was a member took over some 6,000 acres on the north bank of the Thames. We left untouched, at the express request of the London borough of Greenwich, the 300 acres of dereliction now known as the dome site.
When I returned to the then Department of the Environment in 1990, that land was as derelict as it had been in 1979. On my best judgment, derelict it would have remained if we had not taken a decision to enable English Partnerships to acquire the site, clear the toxic waste and give the land a hope of life. It is today a site of huge potential. Once again, the critics have been confounded. Far from having no use for the dome, we are besieged by people who seek to acquire it for after-use. I do not know what decision will be made, but those of us who backed the concept from the beginning always believed that if we had the faith to see it through, it would deliver a massive surge of regeneration in that important and historic part of London.
The dome is a national project. It is important in the eyes of both the British people and the world. Everyone knows what we have invested in the project. We must be


seen to support it and to give it every chance to be the success that I have always believed, and still believe, it will prove to be.

Mr. Clive Efford: I must respond to the final point made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) by saying that the Greenwich peninsula was never in the ownership of the London borough of Greenwich. The site was heavily contaminated and the cost of clearing and decontaminating it had always prevented development. That is the historical reason why the site remained derelict for 20 years.
When the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) opened for the Opposition, he said nothing positive about the dome. However, the project was bipartisan from the outset. It was conceived under the previous Conservative Government, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley and others for their bravery in supporting it from an early stage. I recall attending a reception on the Cutty Sark at Greenwich almost a decade ago, when I was a councillor, and I spoke with the world's media about the potential of Greenwich for millennium celebrations. We discussed the possibility of regenerating the site, but we knew it would take a scheme of the magnitude of the millennium experience to generate enough investment to clear the site for development and regeneration.
Those 300 acres were London's largest derelict waterfront site, and they had been empty for 20 years. Greenwich is within the Thames gateway area, which includes seven of the 20 poorest boroughs in the country. One third of London's unemployed live in the gateway area. The dome was initially intended to create 7,000 jobs, but by the end of the year it is expected to have created about 25,000. Between 1991 and 1993, Greenwich lost 500 businesses and more than 10,000 manufacturing jobs. Regeneration of the millennium project site was much needed.
The wider benefits of the millennium project were never forgotten during its development. The masts that have become such a feature of the dome were built by a steel company based in Bolton and Bristol. That company provided 1,600 tonnes of steel and 70 km of steel cabling. Construction contracts for £38 million were issued throughout London. A further £9.6 million was spent on labour. Construction contracts issued throughout the rest of the country totalled £130 million.
During the construction of the dome, the long-term benefits were also considered. The British Tourist Authority estimated that the millennium experience could generate up to £500 million from additional overseas visitors, and that the halo market effect would be £1 billion. Tourism is among the five largest UK industries; it is worth £40 billion a year.
South-east London lacked the infrastructure enjoyed by many other parts of the capital. We did not have direct access to the London underground. Anyone travelling to central London from north Kent, east Sussex or south-east London had to rely heavily on the rail network. Buses were not seen as an option because of heavy traffic congestion—which grew during the 18 years of the Conservative Government.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was until recently the shadow Transport spokesman wrote an article in The Guardian in which he criticised the dome because it was not possible to reach it by car. People in my constituency think that is one of the benefits of the scheme. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has never tried to drive through Greenwich during peak periods. Visitors to the dome will have to do that if they are to spend a full day there. Commuters who queue to go through the Blackwall tunnel every morning will be mindful of the fact that they would be enjoying the company of several thousand car users trying to get to the Greenwich waterfront if the Conservatives had won the last election.
The dome will be a major attraction for many years to come. The transport scheme will benefit south-east London and the dome for a long time. A huge car park on the Greenwich peninsula would have encouraged people to bring their cars and ignore the public transport alternatives. Even the Conservative Government acknowledged the need to limit out-of-town developments when they changed planning guidance in order to restrict car use in new shopping developments and encourage greater use of public transport.
People who visit the dome do not want a long traffic queue to be the beginning of their millennium experience—or of future events that may take place in the dome.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Looking to the future and to the success of the dome in its passage to other hands, does my hon. Friend agree that the funds generated could be redeployed—perhaps to the midlands or the north-west—where the dome should have been built in the first place?

Mr. Efford: I have already explained why it was necessary to build the dome in Greenwich—the place that gave its name to the way in which we record time. In my opinion and that of my former colleagues on Greenwich council, that was the only site for the millennium experience.
The Jubilee line extension brings enormous benefits to south-east London. It will be available for future generations of people who want access to jobs in the east London corridor. For far too long, people in south-east London have been forced to rely solely on rail services or to undertake long car journeys. Moving around the perimeter of London has meant either a long bus ride or a train journey into and out of central London. The opening of North Greenwich station and the extension of the docklands light railway to south-east London offers many public transport options for people in the area, and will assist in minimising the traffic that has blighted it for far too long.
People in my area are very concerned about the dome's future. The dome has created many jobs in south-east London, and the prospects for its future use concern them greatly. I have recently raised with London Regional Transport issues to do with its transport planning and the way that it has linked other parts of south-east London and the south-east with the new options that have been created by the extension of the new transport links. The prospects for employment in the area are extensive as a result of the development that is taking place along the entire river frontage.
The dome has been a victim of its own success. Initially, the headlines were about the length of time that it was taking to queue for the attractions—there was no suggestion that too few people were making it to the dome to enjoy a day out. Then the headlines focused on the fact that there were not enough people at the dome to form a queue of any sort. I understand that today the reports are that people are complaining that they turned up at the dome to buy a ticket and were unable to do so. I have to conclude that, whatever happens at the dome, it will never be reported as a success.
The attendance figures for January need to be viewed in perspective. All the large theme parks with which the dome has been compared do not open at this time of year. Nevertheless, attendance figures for the first week in February show that 105,000 people attended the dome, and that figure has shown a steady increase despite the amount of negative publicity that there has been recently.
As the Secretary of State said, in the last four days 25,000 to 26,000 people have attended the dome, which means that it has reached almost capacity every single day. We need to put those statistics in perspective and consider the prospects for the dome in an entire year. The hon. Member for East Surrey has taken the opportunity to criticise the Government while few people are attending the dome, but he has not taken into account the forecast attendance figures for an entire year. He should focus on the forecasts to assess whether the dome will be a success in the long term.
The Secretary of State drew attention to surveys of those visiting the dome. The London tourist board surveyed visitors from abroad to London during the last summer period. It found that eight out of 10 of those who were planning to return to London next summer intended to visit the dome. The dome also compares favourably with all other major attractions in London. In a recent MORI poll undertaken on behalf of the New Millennium Experience Company, 82 per cent. of those interviewed said that they were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the new millennium dome.
The Opposition are attempting to fill the void that is left by their total lack of any coherent set of policies. The dome is a success. It now features on many corporations' logos. It features in the work of the advertising industry, which would not associate itself with something that is likely to be a failure.
Visitors continue to vote with their feet and express their approval on leaving the dome. We should celebrate this achievement and seek to maximise its benefits instead of continuing to undermine it. We should also seek to enhance the regeneration benefits that it has brought to an important area in south-east London.

Mr. Norman Baker: The Secretary of State—who, sadly, is not in the Chamber at the moment—said that the dome should not be a partisan issue. He implied that anyone who had criticisms of it was in some way disloyal to the country, which has the dome as its national icon as part of the millennium celebrations. I hope that he will accept that Liberal Democrats try to judge the issues on their merits. Earlier, I gave warm support to his statement on the funding of the BBC, which contrasts with the comments that were made by Tory Members.
It is no use saying that those who have qualms about the dome must be quiet or that they are somehow being disloyal. Questions need to be answered and they relate

to the Government's performance on the issue. I hope that they will answer the questions rather than seek to portray those who have queries as being disloyal.
The Conservative party was right to call this debate. It was right because we have not had proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issue since day one. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that there has been no secrecy and that everything was properly accountable However, from the time when the Prime Minister gave the green light to the dome project on 19 June 1997, we had to wait months for the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was then responsible for the dome, even to turn up in the Chamber. He went more than a year without saying a word here. After intense pressure from the media, me and others, we finally received a five-minute question session to deal with the millennium dome. The time was eventually extended to 10 minutes and the first debate took place only in 1998. We cannot say that the issue has received proper parliamentary scrutiny.
This is the first debate that we have had since the dome opened, and it is been called on an Opposition day. The Government have not made statements on what happened on 31 December or on any other event related to the dome, despite the fact that we are told that it is so important. The Government cannot have it both ways. They have been happy to take the credit for the dome where appropriate, but they are happy to run away when problems occur with its running.
Secrecy has been a feature from the beginning. In January 1998, a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), called for details of spending on the dome to be published each month. That was refused. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), also called for the dome's cash-flow forecasts to be published on a monthly basis. That was refused.
I and others have asked countless parliamentary questions, but they have simply not been answered, on the so-called ground of commercial confidentiality. Any student of Westminster will say that that is the easiest way for a Government to avoid answering parliamentary questions.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Just the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Baker: No, not just my questions, but questions from many Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard more closely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when he was going through one of his bouts of asking many questions about the dome, I took the trouble to invite him to meet my officials and members of the New Millennium Experience Company, so that they could answer his questions. Will he now kindly acknowledge that offer?

Mr. Baker: I am happy to acknowledge it. However, I point out that there is a difference between off-the-record briefings behind closed doors and proper parliamentary scrutiny on the record and in the House.
The questions that have been answered on the record have not been answered fully. I asked one question in November and another in December. Both received holding answers and, when they were finally answered at some length in late December, they received exactly the same answer even though my questions were totally different. Someone pressed the button for the acceptable form of words for that month, and the same answer came out.
I have also asked the Minister about the tendency for so many questions to receive holding answers. When I asked her how many holding answers had been issued, she told me that she would reply to me shortly. In other words, that was a holding answer to a holding answer.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has also examined the matter. It has said that getting information about the dome is "akin to drawing teeth" and that it is

"not so much a journey through time as a journey into the unknown."

Mr. Bermingham: If, like many of us, the hon. Gentleman had been in the House before 1997, he would have known that formal and informal discussions went on about the dome. There were arguments about its location, cost and everything else. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that once a commercial operation is up and running, there is a need for confidentiality? That is simple common sense, and to carp and gripe from ignorance is not very edifying.

Mr. Baker: There are occasions when certain matters have to be kept confidential, but that excuse has been used to refuse an answer to many legitimate questions asked by hon. Members—including Labour Members who do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather rosy view.
When the Government committed themselves to the dome project in June 1997, they set five conditions: it would result in no extra burden on the public purse; its content would entertain and inspire; it would be a truly national event; it would provide a lasting legacy; and the management structure of the operating company would be strengthened. There was, incidentally, no mention of jobs or the benefit to Greenwich. I accept that Greenwich has benefited and that jobs have been created, but that was not one of the five conditions that the Government imposed when they decided to go ahead.
The key to this multi-million pound project has been private sector sponsorship. There has been confusion about exactly what has been promised to the sponsors and exactly how much they have paid. Those are more unanswered questions that ought to be cleared up by the Minister in her response. For example, in answer to a parliamentary question on 24 February 1998—two years ago this Thursday—the then Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), told the House that the NMEC had that day announced the first four sponsors, and the list included Sky. In a parliamentary answer of 3 December 1998, he confirmed a number of sponsors, including Boots the Chemist and Sky.
On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary, who has inherited this portfolio, revealed that three sponsors have not yet signed on the dotted line, including Boots the

Chemist and Sky. The same three companies were named in a parliamentary question that I asked on 11 February, and again it was confirmed that they had not signed. That was confirmed again on 14 February.
Why have those companies, which were confirmed as sponsors two years ago, not yet signed on the dotted line? What reservations do they have? What are they trying to extract before they sign? Is there any doubt about whether they will hand over the money? If there is no doubt, why have they not signed and why have they not paid the money? The Minister must answer those questions. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to duck them and to set a loyalty test in respect of the dome.
On 31 January this year, the Under-Secretary said on sponsorship:
we are confident that contractual arrangements will be finalised in the very near future."—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 476W.]
Perhaps we can find out what the Government mean by "very near future". Is that an early pledge that those sponsors will be providing money for the dome?
Mars, which is another sponsor that has not signed, and Boots use the dome and millennium experience logo on their products. Perhaps Sky does too. Why should they be able to use that marque when they have not handed over the money? In the meantime, who is stumping up the cash to make up the shortfall or cash-flow problems that the sponsors are causing by not handing over the money?
We are told that the dome is a massive success, that people think it wonderful and that everybody is flocking to it. The average number of visitors in January was 11,820 a day. If that rate continues, the dome will attract only 4,000,300 people over the year. That would fall short not only of the long established visitor target of 12 million this year, but of the new target—I wonder where it has emerged from—of 10 million. The 10 million target will still require an average of more than 27,000 visitors a day, which answers the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who was saying what a great success the dome is. It will not reach the new target, even with this weekend's performance.

Mr. Efford: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a quiet time of year for tourism? Most of the country's major attractions are not open, but the millennium dome is achieving high attendances. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that and explain to the House what he would consider success for the dome?

Mr. Baker: I am happy to deal with that point. Given the hype, the attraction and all the newspaper coverage, positive and negative, nobody could be unaware of the millennium dome. I should have thought that those who wanted to visit it would be queueing up in January, when it was allegedly quiet; January should have been a good month for the dome, not a poor one.
Will the Minister clear up the question of the target number of visitors? The target was 12 million. In a letter dated 6 December to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary wrote:
I am confident that NMEC will achieve its 12 million visitor target and that the resulting income targets will be met enabling the project, over its lifetime, to be delivered within the £758 million cash budget set for it in February 1997.


As recently as 6 December, the Minister was committed to a 12 million target. Why has that target now been dropped to 10 million? Who dropped it? Is that based on revised expectations of the number of visitors who will attend, or is there some other explanation?
Is it not true that the Minister and those involved in the dome are trying to drop the target so that they can, at the end of the year, claim that it has been met? Is there to be a further drop to 8 million later this year? According to the Financial Times, 75,000 visitors made it to the dome between Friday and Sunday, which makes it the best weekend yet. However, even if that success were repeated every day this year, the number of visitors would not reach 10 million over the year.
I shall not dwell on the troubles of the opening night, which have been well rehearsed both in the debate and in the newspapers, but I am concerned about the questions surrounding the management of the dome. Why, despite the fact that visitors are not turning up in the expected numbers, are there long queues, at least for certain zones? Those are apparently now being sorted out by the repair man from France, Mr. Gerbeau. On the issue of repairs, he might like to deal with the broken exhibits listed a week ago by The Times, whose impromptu survey found 10 exhibits broken in the living island zone; three in the work zone; 2,000 robots—the majority—not working in the mind zone; 18 exhibits broken in the learning zone; nine broken in the money zone; and the heart beat irregular in the body zone. All that suggests that the repair man from Disneyland is needed.

Mr. John Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the exhibits that has broken down is a laughing toilet bowl? I am pleased to report that it is being repaired and, in the meantime, a life-sized sculpture of a rhinoceros has been erected. Does he agree that the rhinoceros is an admirable symbol for the dome, given that it is known for its lack of vision and its tendency to charge a lot?

Mr. Baker: With my animal welfare hat on, I am tempted to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should perhaps leave that matter to one side.
It was said that the dome would be a truly national event, yet only 34 per cent. of visitors have come from outside London, with only 5 per cent. coming from northern England, 2 per cent. from Scotland and fewer than 1.5 per cent. from Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
There was a fiasco about the dismissal—let us be frank, it was a dismissal—of Jennie Page. We have been told tonight that she was wonderful, fantastic, the best thing since sliced bread; but if she was so good and we owe her so much, why was she dumped out on her ear and left to cry in her office? Was it treachery, or was she not as good as has been suggested? If she was that good, she should not have been treated in that manner. Is it not the truth that the sponsors are in control and they demanded her head on a plate?

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two questions. First, is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members do not attack people who cannot reply for themselves? Secondly, is it not the case that we do not read speeches unless they have been circulated in advance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): First, there is no question of a person outside the House being attacked. Secondly, no Standing Order states that speeches may not be read, but "Erskine May" has something helpful to say on the subject and I should be pleased if more hon. Members read it.

Mr. Baker: For the record, I am not reading a speech; I am reading notes and improvising as I go along. Other Front Benchers have the benefit of the Dispatch Box on which to rest their notes, but that facility is not currently available to the Liberal Democrats. Let us hope that it will be when the House is reconstituted after the next election—but that is another debate.
The dome is architecturally a great achievement. The Jubilee line extension and the tube station there are great achievements, as is Westminster station. The staff at the dome are extremely friendly and helpful. However, the dome lacks cohesion, because the entire process has been driven by a small clique which started under the Conservative Government and continues under the present Government. Decisions are taken behind closed doors. It is not a people's dome; it is the dome of a small clique.

Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: No, I shall finish my remarks.
If a committee designs an animal, it comes up with a camel. The dome is all right, but it could have been so much better. It is not worth £758 million. It is not the icon that it has been talked up to be. The Government are not wholly responsible for that, but they had a role in it. Some serious questions have been asked in the House tonight, which the Minister has a duty to answer when she comes to the Dispatch Box.?

Ms Claire Ward: I am amazed by the Opposition's choice of subject for this debate. It represents political opportunism of the worst kind on the part of the Conservatives. They are exploiting what was a cross-party venture, yet apart from the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) who has just wandered in, there were at one point in the debate only three hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, including the Front Bench. That is rather strange. The Opposition initiated the debate, yet as a party they have no interest in attending or speaking in it.
The one speech that we heard from the Conservative Benches, from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was positive in tone. It took a great deal of courage for the right hon. Gentleman to make that speech.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Was not the great distance between the right hon. Member for Henley and the rest of the Conservative party also significant?

Ms Ward: The right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately is not present, is distant from his party not only on the subject of the dome, but on Europe, I am pleased to say.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) spoke about parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps he has forgotten that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport held a


number of inquiries into the millennium dome. There is no doubt that parliamentary scrutiny took place; there was even a debate in the Chamber on one of the Select Committee's reports.
Those of us who started off with a degree of scepticism—I include myself among them—have been convinced by the project. As a member of the Select Committee, I was involved in quizzing the right hon. Member for Henley intensely on his ideas for the dome. At that time, I was not impressed, but as the project progressed over the past two to three years, it has developed into a good project that is right for the country.
It is right that we should have a focal point for the millennium, and there is no doubt that the millennium dome provides that focal point. We should be proud that the project has been delivered to target, on time and within the budget that was set. It was built with public money, not taxpayers' money, and that represents only one fifth of the total amount of money available to the Millennium Commission.
Whether or not hon. Members supported the millennium dome project at the beginning is no longer the issue. The dome exists, and it is viewed around the world as an emblem of Britain. We must make it work. No matter what the views were before, it is important to ensure that it does not fail now. That would not be in the interests of the lottery players who contributed the money. It is not in the country's interests for the dome to be perceived as failing when we are the focus of world attention. I hope that Opposition Members will reconsider their views.

Mr. Pound: France marked the millennium with the partial sponsorship of a yacht race, and in Germany there was a trade fair. Can my hon. Friend imagine the reaction of her constituents, mine and the people of this nation, if we had not had such an achievement as the dome?

Ms Ward: There were mixed reactions to the millennium dome in my constituency, as there were in my hon. Friend's. However, there are mixed reactions to a range of lottery projects. It is important that as well as providing a national focal point, the Millennium Commission funded a range of initiatives around the country that allowed people to celebrate the millennium in their communities.
The millennium dome has meant investment in what was a waste site in Greenwich, provided thousands of jobs and played an important part in regenerating that area. No one can deny that the dome has had a difficult start. We should not make excuses for the mishaps on the opening night. It is unacceptable for people to be kept waiting at Stratford station and not to receive their tickets on time. However, one incident is not a reason to criticise the dome for the rest of the year. Perhaps the lesson that we should learn is that it is not good public relations to keep six newspaper editors and their families waiting in the cold.
Some people have always wanted the millennium dome to fail. No matter what happened on millennium eve, the dome would have had its critics. It was interesting to read the newspapers in the first few days and weeks when the millennium dome was open. First, they criticised the queues and the fact that people had to wait a long time.

Then they criticised the dome for being empty. Newspapers cannot have it both ways. The dome is either a popular attraction that people want to visit—in which case, queues are to be expected—

Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ward: I shall not give way, because of lack of time.
I challenge those who have criticised the queues to compare the dome with other attractions in the United Kingdom at this time of year. I have recommended that my friends not visit the dome in January, February or March, but wait until later, when the weather will be much better and the dome will have an improved programme in the form of other facilities that will be open on the site.
It was interesting to note the names of the six Opposition Members who tabled the motion. Only one of them is present at the moment. I wonder how many of them have visited the dome apart from on millennium eve, when, as I found, there was no opportunity to view all the zones. If those Opposition Members had visited the dome apart from on millennium eve, they would have realised that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in a day at the dome.
The independent MORI survey showed that 83 per cent. of those polled were very or fairly satisfied, and that 68 per cent. believed that the dome represented very or fairly good value for money. Furthermore, 26 per cent. of those questioned believed that the dome was much better than expected, 23 per cent. believed that it was somewhat better and 25 per cent. believed that it was about the same as they had expected. Many attractions in the United Kingdom would love to achieve such a response. More than half those questioned would definitely recommend a visit to the dome to a friend, a further quarter would probably do so and 92 per cent. rated the show in the centre good or very good.

Mr. David Faber: If the hon. Lady thinks that the dome is such a success and everything is going so well at the moment, why did she and her fellow Labour MPs on the Select Committee reject my suggestion last week that we should reconsider it immediately?

Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman knows very well why we decided not to hold another inquiry into the millennium dome. That is not to say that the Select Committee will not hold an inquiry—it has been said that we will and I am confident that one will take place—but this is not the right time. We should not hold an inquiry until we have considered both P-Y Gerbeau's new administration in office and the figures over a more reasonable period. The hon. Gentleman accepted that argument at the Select Committee meeting and I am most surprised that he has raised it in an attempt to cause difficulty. I am afraid that that will not work.
People of a good mix of ages have visited the millennium dome, and its links to the community—for example, the McDonald's our town and the Tesco school net—all show that it is a success and will continue to be so, no matter what the Opposition and one or two newspaper editors think. There are 10 months to go, and P-Y Gerbeau should have the nation's backing to make the project work.
I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will leave politics outside the dome and consider it a national event deserving of cross-party support, as at the beginning. The Conservatives had the original idea and I invite Opposition Members to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley and provide cross-party support where it is needed.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I confess to feeling a certain air of surrealism because the debate has been conducted largely in terms that might apply to a bingo parlour: it is marvellous that the dome got up on time, or a little dangerous that it took rather long; it is splendid that so many people visited, or a pity that so few attended. The same might be said of a popular television series or some such thing, but remarkably this particular object is not like such a series or a bingo hall. [Interruption.] I say to hon. Members who are amusing themselves that I do not have an interest in either of those items so I have probably used the wrong terms for them. However, the point is valid.

Ms Ward: Has the hon. Gentleman been to the dome?

Mr. Letwin: No, no. Not only have I not visited the dome, but I have absolutely no intention of doing so under any circumstances. I shall explain why.
The remarkable thing about these populist events, whose success or failure can be measured in terms of the number of people who do or do not visit them, is that people pay to see them and do so because they like them. I do not happen to like them. The public and the sponsors between them have not contributed £750 million. I know that we live in an age of inflation and that the Chancellor is spending an ever-greater proportion of our gross domestic product on numerous matters, but £750 million still strikes me as a lot of money. Were it invested, it would yield about £60 million a year on a modest appreciation. What would that sum support? Many things could be mentioned, but I want to attend to one in particular.
The Secretary of State, many Members on both sides of the House and I attended Cambridge university. What does it receive from the Higher Education Funding Council? About £60 million. What are we saying? A combination of public money via the lottery and the sponsors' money was used to fund this object, which I shall come to in a moment, in place of funding Cambridge university in perpetuity with as much again as it receives from the HEFC at present.
Whether many people went or did not go, whether schoolchildren did or did not get in and whether the Secretary of State or his Ministers were hopelessly at odds with reality when they thought they could make the thing work financially does not matter. What matters is that a colossal sum has been spent on something that is indeed—in the words of the motion—a "national embarrassment". It is a national embarrassment not because it does not work particularly well—which, goodness knows, it does not—or because the food is awful, or for some such trivial reason, but because it constitutes an extraordinary denial of the fundamental aspects of our culture that we should spend time applauding this dreadful object instead of applauding Cambridge university. I say "Cambridge university", but I could just as well name any other great university.
First, there is the question of how this object relates to our national past. In a great university, what is celebrated, what is taught and what it handed on to other generations is a heritage in the proper sense. It is a cultural heritage—something that is inherited, and in that sense a heritage—but also something that is worth having; something that is the foundation of our understanding of the world. In our great universities, however, there is also a conception of the future. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I did not hear what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said from a sedentary position.

Mr. Efford: How many people have visited Cambridge university in the past four days?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I encourage the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) not to provoke a sedentary debate.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I fear that, if the hon. Member for Eltham believes that the measure of a great university is the number of people who visit it, he is subject to exactly the problem that has afflicted the debate, and afflicts the Government's understanding of this object.
In a great university, we also think of the future in a certain way. We think of it as something that is not disconnected from the past, but is continuous with it. In a great university, what is passed on is not merely the heritage of the past but the foundation of the future. A culture is seen as something that comes from the past and goes to the future, understands the past and the present, and provides the basis for an understanding of the future.
All those aspects are entirely missing from the confection that is the dome. No Labour Member has remotely attempted to defend it this evening in cultural terms. The Secretary of State had an ample opportunity. I remind the House that he is the Secretary of State for, among other things, culture. He made a remarkable speech, which contained not a word about our culture and not a single attempt to defend the expenditure of £750 million on an object with no cultural value whatever.

Ms Ward: First, the £758 million that was spent was not public money. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should have made his remarks during the education debate that took place earlier. If he wants to consider the contents of the Dome, I suggest that he goes and looks for himself, rather than criticising from a position of no knowledge at all.

Mr. Letwin: I shall resist the temptation to explain to the hon. Lady the degree to which, were I to visit the dome, my future actions might be impeded by the depression that I would encounter. Let me respond to her other point. Does she really believe that a world exists in which we ought to forget about culture because we should not concern ourselves with anything that has only £400 million of strictly public money, and should pay no attention to the fact that a great part of the Government's efforts was devoted to raising another £300-odd million, which could have been devoted to raising that £300 million in addition to the £400 million of public money for one of our great universities? If she thinks that


a world exists in which we should not attend to any of that because only £400 million of public money was spent, her conception of culture, and of the state's relationship to it, is different from mine.
The odd thing is that, until prompted by my remarks, the hon. Lady did not even mention that. There she was, another Labour Member, making an eloquent speech—excellent, as always—but uttering not a word about the purpose of this thing. Apparently, it was visitor attraction.
It is sad—I mean it genuinely, not in a partisan spirit—when a nation has been so corrupted, perhaps alas in part by the rhetoric of the present Government, although not wholly, that it begins to think that it is reasonable to spend as much money as would keep a great university going in perpetuity on an item that is so entirely vacuous that its defenders do not have a word to say on its behalf in cultural terms.

Mrs. Joan Humble: May I advise the hon. Gentleman that, on 14 January, I joined 640 young people who had travelled from Blackpool to visit the dome? They thoroughly enjoyed its educational value, the spectacular show there and the zones. Every one to whom I spoke wanted to come back, thoroughly enjoyed it and benefited in both educational and cultural terms. They also enjoyed coming to the capital, which many of my constituents have never done.

Mr. Letwin: I close my remarks on a note that the hon. Lady prompts. I am sure that she is right. I am sure that what she describes could be replicated manyfold. I am sure that many children and even perhaps some adults much enjoyed the experience. I have no doubt that they would much enjoy many other things. Had they come to a football match, visited the tower of London, walked around and seen the pigeons in Trafalgar square, they would have had a pleasant day. If she really believes, when she reflects on it, that the nation should spend £750 million to celebrate the millennium by giving some schoolchildren a pleasant day out, her conception of what a Government preoccupying themselves with the cultural necessities of our nation means, is, I regret to say, shallow.
We have a responsibility in the House to ensure that our Government do not celebrate a millennium in so superficial a fashion. That is what has happened. It will be a matter of regret for some decades and perhaps centuries. People will look back at the dome and see in it a symbol of the shallowness of a culture that has been corrupted.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I know that time is short, so I will contain my comments to a few points.
I speak as someone who lives, in my London home, close to the dome. More relevantly, I also speak as Member of Parliament representing the centre of Birmingham. Those Members who were here before the last election will be aware that Birmingham was one of the cities that bid for the central millennium festivities. It was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), along with his colleagues, who, for understandable reasons, decided that those festivities should take place at Greenwich.
It is interesting. If Members read Hansard, they will find that, when the right hon. Gentleman, then Deputy Prime Minister, made the decision about which bid should be successful and defended it in the House, not one Member who is now sitting on the Opposition Benches criticised his decision then, or subsequently.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godsiff: Forgive me. Time is short.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) refers to political opportunism, she makes a valid point.
The reason why I mention Birmingham is because, as a consolation prize, Birmingham got one of the big projects from the Millennium Commission: Millennium Point, a futuristic science park that will enormously benefit the people of Birmingham and stand for many years as a testament to that great city. Many people in Birmingham would say that that £50 million was a better prize than the original prize of getting the central festivities.
I have been to the millennium dome and it is an interesting day out.

Mr. Pound: As bad as that, eh?

Mr. Godsiff: I shall ignore that remark.
I do not get carried along by the hype. I have never believed that the dome ranks with the Taj Mahal as one of the great wonders of the world. However, it is an interesting building.
I am sure that the Government are aware of the public concern. Those who have been to the dome often come away with the feeling that there is an unresolved clash of themes: the understandable commercial theme of the sponsors, who want to push their brands, and the theme of the artists, who are trying to project something relating to Britain's past and its future. I have had the pleasure to go to Disneyland and, more importantly, to the Epcot centre next door—the futuristic science theme museum and park. The dome is not a Disneyland or an Epcot centre. I regret to say that many people say after visiting the dome that it is really just a pumped-up trade show.
That is sad, because it undermines many of the successes that the dome has brought to the area, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) referred. That part of London, which I know well, has greatly needed the vast amounts of public expenditure. The money that has gone into the infrastructure will bring lasting benefits to the community. I have no doubt that whatever succeeds the dome will stand the test of time. The money that has been spent will be recouped and we can be proud of what we have put there. It is just sad that the clash of cultures and themes could not have been resolved before the dome was opened.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: This has been a short debate, long waited for by the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) set out the mishaps surrounding the project and the Government interference that has


dogged it. Unlike the Secretary of State, I shall restrict my comments to the dome and not drift off to other issues. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), as ever, asked the Government many questions that remain unanswered. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made some telling and intellectual observations on culture and the history of this country.
Some hon. Members have pointed out that the project was conceived by the Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) confirmed the purpose of the project. He articulated why the dome was to be built and portrayed the philosophy that the previous Government believed would be at the heart of the dome and what it would stand for—an image of a country at the forefront of cultural, artistic, engineering and scientific activity and attainment. It was to be about a sense of unity, bringing the nation together, and the regeneration of a derelict and contaminated area of London. That was my right hon. Friend's vision, embraced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not a concept that should divide Members.
The noble vision of all that is best of British was destroyed when the Millbank machine took control and the Labour party decided to make the millennium dome a symbol of new Labour. Ever since the Labour Government finally proclaimed that they would, after all, allow the dome to continue, political interference has dogged the project. If proof were needed of the Government's determination to interfere with the project, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, it was found in the appointment of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), Labour's Mr. Fixit, known colloquially as the Dome Secretary. There is a wealth of evidence of the Government's interference in the millennium dome project. That has been nothing but detrimental to the success of what should have been a national celebration and an object of pride.
If new Labour could not come up with five meaningful election pledges, how could it possibly have been expected to come up with 14 meaningful dome zones? If only the Government had left NMEC and its chosen advisers to get on with the finer details, how much more inspired the zones and the whole experience could have been.
Perhaps the most troubled zone has been the faith zone, which was in true politically correct fashion renamed "faith zone" because the word "the" was thought to imply that only one faith—Christianity—was to be celebrated. It has been the target of much criticism from the Church of England, as a symbol of all that is wrong with the dome itself. On many occasions, we have said that the Government's mantra is one of style before substance; in this case, it is style before content.
The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who serves with me on the Select Committee, summed it up:
It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be.
It is a shame that she did not say the same today.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, there is no time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I must carry on.
It comes down to the fact that a Government who so pride themselves on the ability to get the message across and concentrate all their efforts on communication have failed to get the positive message out on the millennium dome. They have thus failed not only the dome but the nation itself. That failure has understandably created apathy in Britain and made nonsense of the Prime Minister's prediction in 1998 that the British people would seize the moment.
The dome is a project that the people of Britain rightly wanted to support. They wanted to be inspired by a new wonder of Britain to visit in the new century. Even the Deputy Prime Minister must have recognised that the Government were pushing against an open door when he was reported to have told the Prime Minister:
If we can't make this work, we're not much of a Government.
He also said—the words will come back to haunt him—that the dome would be the Labour Government's
first big test of competence".
Muddle, dither and delay were features of the Government's approach to the dome even before they took office. Even then, their failure to get behind the project was inexcusable; but, as soon as they assumed power, their inability to make up their mind meant that, quite understandably, the private sector was reluctant to commit money. I warned the House two years ago that there would be serious repercussions. Now we know just how serious they are. Even now, nearly two months after the dome opened, three high-profile sponsors are yet to sign their contracts.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are seeking cut-price deals to get themselves out of this hole? Ministers must learn that, in the real world of business, companies do not like throwing good money after bad. Mr. Michael Grade, a director of NMEC, asked the Select Committee to consider the dome in comparison to two key sporting events. He told us that the organisers had known for more than 100 years that the Olympic games would come in 2000, and that the world cup, as a very predictable event, is planned six or eight years ahead. On behalf of NMEC, he explained that "we are playing catch-up." Playing catch-up two years before opening night? Surely NMEC realised when the millennium would come, or was it playing catch-up because of Labour's dither and delay?
Even now, at the end of February 2000, the Government's dome is surrounded by controversy. We all hope that it will regain its momentum, but it cannot do so while the bad press continues about high-level resignations and allegations of Ministers' involvement. I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said in the Select Committee of the resignation of Jennie Page:
I think we will have to look and ask the questions, both of the ministers and of the company, as to how it happened and why it happened.
One of the Government's special talents is the ability to take the credit when it suits and to deflect the blame when they know that they are responsible. The failures are none the less well documented. Setting aside new year's eve, we all know the history of the Jubilee line extension, which has been an utter disgrace. We know that the opening was delayed and delayed again; that, when the first section finally opened, it had to be closed again; and that, in the final reckoning, the budget went out of control.
The Government failed to speed up the construction to tackle the problems caused by the unions representing the electricians. They failed to understand that the implications of the working time directive made it more difficult for contractors to finish on time.
To add insult to injury for the 3,000 people who were delayed on new year's eve and who could have been ambassadors for the dome, their problems were greeted by inappropriate comments from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who told Radio 4:
I have nothing to do with the dome. It was a bit of a laugh, really, some of those toffee-nosed people having to queue.
Why does he have nothing to do with the dome? Why is he not here to defend it, not least in the recognition that it is in a derelict part of London, which he hopes one day—God forbid—to have something to do with? What kind of ambassador for London would he be, if ever he were to be elected?
On 1 January, the media wreaked their revenge. Is it any surprise that, as a result of Government mismanagement, the dome has seen poor attendance levels, long queues and failed equipment? Why should people bother to make the trip, despite last weekend's hype, which was mentioned earlier?
I questioned the Government in January 1998 about what would happen if the number of visitors was less than the 12 million needed to break even. At that time, a senior Disney executive—yes, it was involved even then—a man with vast experience of visitor attractions, had been blunt when he told the Select Committee:
I do not believe those numbers.
The then Minister could not answer me, because—he said—he had not thought about it. Had the Government listened, they would not have had to go cap in hand to that same organisation to sort out the problems that should have been recognised two years ago. They were arrogant then, and they are arrogant now, about the problems.
Will the Minister answer some questions today? What criteria will be used to judge the performance of Mr. Gerbeau, the self-styled saviour of Disneyland Paris? What contingency plan does the Government have in case he, too, should resign? What was the new opportunities fund set up to achieve? Was its original purpose to bail out the dome if it got into difficulties? Does she agree that we must now address the issue of pricing of tickets and transport to the dome to encourage visitors to the attraction? The past three days may have been encouraging, but if people do not come during school holidays and when the tourist season starts, then the dome is doomed from the word go. Will the Minister encourage NMEC to address the problem of queuing now, while the visitor numbers are low, so that the increase in visitors, which we all want to see, does not lead to unmanageable and unpopular queues?
The Prime Minister is reported to have said that the dome and its content will be the first paragraph of his next election manifesto. That will make interesting reading. He and his Government need to do some serious thinking about their priorities. They have failed abysmally on the delivery of key pledges. They have failed to reduce NHS waiting lists, to increase police numbers, and to maintain spending on education at the levels that they inherited, but they find time to meddle and interfere in the organisation of the dome—to the great detriment of the project.
The success of the dome remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the one thing that the dome does not need is more Government interference. I wish the dome well despite the Government's interference. It must succeed and it must be allowed to succeed—for the nation's sake.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) who has been newly appointed to the Front Bench and who stood in for the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who sadly could not be with us this evening, has put a lot of questions to us and I am only sorry that he has not left us much time to answer them. I will do my best.
Given that this is an issue that the Opposition clearly take seriously, I was surprised to see so few Opposition Members present for the majority of the debate. In fact, the number we have now is a record. However, it is good to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I was amused by the Opposition's motion, which talks of Government interference. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) claimed that he had never done anything to denigrate the dome, but the motion calls it
a source of national embarrassment, a wasted opportunity to celebrate Britain and the Millennium and poor value for Lottery players' money.
If that is not denigrating the dome, I do not know what is.
Politicians do not have to interfere with the dome and, in fact, we have no locus to interfere, because—as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—the dome is run by an independent company. The dome can speak for itself. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday of this weekend, the dome was sold out. This morning, as has already been reported, the dome was sold out by 11.30 am. There was an announcement on the Jubilee line telling people not to proceed to the dome because they would not get in. I happen to know that the Deputy Prime Minister was down there today with 600 schoolchildren from his constituency. He found a father and two children distraught outside the dome because they could not get in because the dome was full. So my right hon. Friend brought them here for a tour of Parliament, and to listen to the debate, in which they will have heard some of the pathetic contributions from Conservative Members.
In the past four days alone, the dome has attracted 100,000 visitors. The total had reached 366,000 by the end of January, and the figure is continuing to rise. The hon. Member for East Surrey referred to an obscure website and said that the dome did not represent value for money. However, he is the Opposition spokesman on tourism, and he should know that the Good Guide to Britain said that the dome was the best value for money of any visitor attraction. It is the most popular visitor attraction in the country.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that time is short. However, there is a difference between value for money in terms of the quality of experience for the people who spend £20 to visit the dome, and value for money in terms of an investment of £400 million of lottery players' money.


We have been talking about the latter problem this evening: if the Minister did not understand that, she has missed the entire point of the debate.

Janet Anderson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative party that decided to go ahead with the dome project in the first place. The dome was a Tory idea. Of course there have been teething troubles: no such attraction ever avoids them, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) explained. The company is seeing what can be done about better visitor management flow and signage. There is a dome-ometer to warn people of waiting times at the zones, and so on.
Some Opposition Members complained about queues, but they cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the existence of queues means that people want to visit the dome.
Reference has been made to Jennie Page. Opposition Members will know that her employment was a matter for the company, but I want to place on record my support for her, and my pleasure at the way in which she delivered the project on time and on budget.

Mr. Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Janet Anderson: No, I have very little time and the hon. Gentleman took a great deal of that in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Henley talked about the initial vision that the dome would be an all-party project. He said that there was no political discussion in the commission, and it is a great shame that Conservative Members should have tried to bring party politics into the matter.
There has been some reference to sponsorship, and I can announce tonight that Mars has now signed the sponsorship contract. In addition, the two remaining sponsors, Boots and BSkyB, are committed at board level and have already made substantial financial contributions. They are using the millennium logo, and it merely remains for them to sign the fine print. I am sure that they will do so.
Conservative Members have also tried to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) for excessive secrecy when he was in charge of the project. However, the right hon. Member for Henley told the House that that was far from the case. Conservative Members should have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of business experience. He described the dome as a project of complexity and sophistication. As he said, it was unfair that the project should have been subject to constant questioning, which no other similar project would have attracted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has always been a firm supporter of the project. He mentioned the benefits that it had brought to industries around the country, and he is right. The steel used in the dome came from Bristol, and from Watson's Steel of Bolton, which is just next door to my constituency. I am therefore well aware of the benefits that have accrued to firms around the country.
I am astonished at how Conservative Members appear unaware of the value of tourism. The British Tourist Authority estimates that extra tourist spending of £1 billion will come into this country as a result of the

dome. Conservative Members should know that tourism is the fastest growing industry in the world. We look forward to the Conservative party's tourism policy, which I understand was launched in Belfast recently. However, we have not seen it yet.
Earlier, I said that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister took 600 children from his constituency to the dome today. A special train was hired to bring them down, and I should like to read the comments of a couple of the children who went. Emma Hewick, aged 11, said:
I loved the trip down, our dinner here and everything we saw. It's been a brill day.
Jordan Mastin, aged 10, said:
It was all very educational, but also hugely enjoyable. All of it was excellent, and I now want to persuade my Mum and Dad to bring me all over again. The show was spectacular, and I wanted to be up there as well, flying through the air. It's been a brilliant day and I loved every second of it.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) talked about an alleged failure to answer his parliamentary questions. I repeat that some of those questions could not be answered in detail; we were as open as possible, but there was a question of commercial confidentiality. No other project of this kind would have been required to make some of that information public at that stage. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I invited him to the Department to meet my officials and members from the company so that we could brief him, off the record. What did he do? After about five minutes, he said, "Actually, I would prefer to talk to you about broadcasting, because I have to draft our party's policy on broadcasting."

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of the meeting, as far as I was concerned, was broadcasting. It was the Minister who wanted to talk about the millennium dome at that point. There is a difference between off-the-record briefings and public accountability in the House.

Janet Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman had told me that he was going to talk about broadcasting, I would not have taken the trouble to invite representatives of the New Millennium Experience Company to the meeting.
During the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the target of 12 million visitors over the year. I confirm that that is still the company's aim. It is now saying that it thinks that it can break even if it achieves a figure of 10 million. That is the difference, and I hope that Conservative Members will remember that.

Mr. Fraser: I am extremely pleased that the hon. Lady has given way. I have three pages of questions that I put to her earlier. I am happy to pass them across for her to start answering some of them.

Janet Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If only Conservative Members had allowed us a little more time in which to respond, we could have answered his questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) referred, quite rightly, to the lack of interest shown by Conservative Members about the subject of what is, after all, their debate. They have talked a lot about the money spent on the dome. Yet it was their project originally, and the money spent on the dome accounts for only one


fifth of Millennium Commission funding. Some 622 constituencies around the country will be celebrating the millennium in their own communities as a result of millennium funding. My hon. Friend also quoted visitor satisfaction surveys. I will not repeat them, except to say that people obviously like the dome.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) says that not only has he not been to the dome to see it for himself, but he has no intention of going. I looked up the hon. Gentleman's career thus far before coming to the House, and I see that it followed the path of Eton, Trinity and the London business school. My strong advice to him is to go down to the dome, get into the real world and enjoy the very real cultural experience that if offers. The dome is all about attracting people—entertaining them, educating them, involving them and inspiring them. It is also about appealing to the many, not the few.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) said that he had had an interesting day out, but he referred to a possible clash of themes. That is not the experience of the majority of people who have gone there and confirmed that the dome offers something for everyone. It is not intended to be Disneyland; it is not a trumped-up trade show. The evidence is that so many people want to return.
Many questions have been posed tonight, and I am sorry—[Interruption.] It is no use Conservative Members bleating, because they allowed very little time for a response. We should all put ourselves behind the millennium dome, and put aside party politics. I wish that Conservative Members would stop carping; if they have not been to the dome, they should go now. If they do—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 275.

Division No. 85]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baker, Norman
Chope, Christopher


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Colvin, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Cotter, Brian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Burnett, John
Faber, David





Fabricant, Michael
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gale, Roger
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robertson, Laurence


Hammond, Philip
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hancock, Mike
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Spring, Richard



Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary



Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Townend, John


Lansley, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyler, Paul


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Loughton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Madel, Sir David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


May, Mrs Theresa
and


Moore, Michael
Mr. Peter Luff.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Brown Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin



Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Buck, Ms Karen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burden, Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cann Jamie


Berry, Roger
Caplin, Ivor


Best, Harold
Casale, Roger


Betts, Clive
Casale, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Cawsey, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Chaytor, David


Borrow, David
Chisholm, Malcolm






Clapham, Michael
Hope, Phil


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hopkins, Kelvin (Edinburgh Pentlands)



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Coleman, Iain
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Crausby, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kemp, Fraser


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Laxton, Bob


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher


Dawson, Hilton
Levitt, Tom


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin


Dobbin, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Love, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Drew, David
McCabe, Steve


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Efford, Clive
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Macdonald, Calum


Ennis, Jeff
McDonnell, John


Etherington, Bill
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McIsaac, Shona


Fisher, Mark
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Mallaber, Judy


Gapes, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Goggins, Paul
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hanson, David
(B'ham Yardley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Healey, John
(Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mountford, Kali


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hepburn, Stephen
Mudie, George


Hesford, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hood, Jimmy
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Norris, Dan





O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Taylor. Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Timms, Stephen


Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Touhig, Don


Rapson, Syd
Trickett, Jon


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rowlands Ted
Tynan, Bill


Roy, Frank
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Singh, Marsha
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 138.

Division No. 86]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Browne, Desmond


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Buck, Ms Karen


Benton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Butler, Mrs Christine


Berry, Roger
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Best, Harold
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Betts, Clive
Cann, Jamie


Blackman, Liz
Caplin, Ivor






Casale, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Cawsey, Ian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Chaytor, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Coaker, Vernon
Jenkins, Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cox, Tom
Kemp, Fraser


Cranston, Ross
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Crausby, David
Kidney, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Lepper, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Leslie, Christopher


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Levitt, Tom


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dawson, Hilton
Linton, Martin


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Denham, John
Love, Andrew


Dismore, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobbin, Jim
McCabe, Steve


Donohoe, Brian H
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Drew, David



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Macdonald, Calum


Efford, Clive
McDonnell, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ennis, Jeff
McIsaac, Shona


Etherington, Bill
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Fisher, Mark
McNulty, Tony


Fitzsimons, Lorna
MacShane, Denis


Flynn, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mallaber, Judy


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fyfe, Maria
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Martlew, Eric


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Maxton, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Merron, Gillian


Goggins, Paul
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mountford, Kali


Hanson, David
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mudie, George


Healey, John
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hepburn, Stephen
Norris, Dan


Hesford, Stephen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hill, Keith
O'Hara, Eddie





Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Timms, Stephen


Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Touhig, Don


Rapson, Syd
Trickett, Jon


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shaw, Jonathan
Wicks, Malcolm


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wills, Michael


Singh, Marsha
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Snape, Peter



Southworth, Ms Helen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. David Jamieson and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Allan, Richard
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Amess, David
Cotter, Brian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Norman
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel


Blunt, Crispin
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Flight, Howard


Brady, Graham
Fraser, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gibb, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Burnett, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Butterflll, John
Green, Damian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Grieve, Dominic



Hague, Rt Hon William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip



Hancock, Mike


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hayes, John


Collins, Tim
Heald, Oliver






Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Prior, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Laurence


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hunter, Andrew
Ruffley, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jenkin, Bernard
St Aubyn, Nick


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Sanders, Adrian



Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soames, Nicholas


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Letwin, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne Desmond


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyler, Paul


Madel, Sir David
Walter, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Waterson, Nigel


Mates, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wilkinson, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Willetts, David


Moore, Michael
Willis, Phil


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Norman, Archie
Yeo, Tim


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Pickles, Eric
and


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the Millennium Experience—and the many other Millennium activities—represent both an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations; further welcomes the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission; and, in particular, notes the record attendances at the Dome in the week commencing 7th February and the recent high satisfaction ratings amongst visitors.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Ordered,
That Sir Peter Lloyd and Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the House of Commons Commission and Mr. Eric Forth and Mr. Stuart Bell be appointed members of the Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put motions 3 and 4 together.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Object.

Madam Speaker: To what is the hon. Gentleman objecting?

Mr. McLoughlin: To motion 3, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In that case, let the Question be put on motion 3 alone.

Social Security

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 124.

Division No. 87]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
Dobbin, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drew, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Goggins, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)





Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rapson, Syd


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roy, Frank


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Levitt, Tom
Savidge, Malcolm


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Snape, Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McDonnell, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stevenson, George


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stinchcombe, Paul


McNulty, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard


MacShane, Denis
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McWilliam, John
Stringer, Graham


Mallaber, Judy
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Maxton, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Merron, Gillian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Timms, Stephen


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Moffatt, Laura
Trickett, Jon


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


(B'ham Yardley)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mudie, George
Tynan, Bill


Mullin, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Ward, Ms Claire


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wareing, Robert N


Norris, Dan
Watts, David


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
White, Brian


O'Hara, Eddie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wills, Michael


Pearson, Ian
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Plaskitt, James
Woodward, Shaun


Pond, Chris
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Prosser, Gwyn
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blunt, Crispin


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)






Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burnett, John
Loughton, Tim


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Norman, Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cotter, Brian
Ottaway, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Paice, James


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Randall, John


Evans Nigel
Robertson, Laurence


Faber, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight Howard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sanders, Adrian


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyler, Paul


Jenkin, Bernard
Walter, Robert


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Whittingdale, John



Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Willetts, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Kirkwood, Archy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tellers for the Noes:


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Leigh, Edward
and


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft African Development Fund (Eighth Replenishment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.

Ordered,

ADMINISTRATION

That Mr. Oliver Heald be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Stephen Day be added to the Committee.

AGRICULTURE

That Mr. Peter Luff be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Owen Paterson be added to the Committee.

DEFENCE

That Mr. Crispin Blunt be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Peter Viggers be added to the Committee.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

That Mr. John Randall be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. Crispin Blunt be added to the Committee.

TREASURY

That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Nigel Beard be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Adjournment

Resolved,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.